Macaulay Seminar One at Brooklyn College

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIykQb8RQK0

Watch it again! We changed some things.

Project by: Maheen Athonu, Mohammad Aziz, Artur Brodskiy 

Hello,

A few weeks back, I visited my brother in Arizona. a highlight of my trip was a tour of Frank Lloyd Wright’s winter house called Taliesin West, which is essentially a complex that has everything from a movie theater, art studio, and cafeteria. It served as a winter home for him and the members of his architecture apprenticeship. Frank Lloyd Wright is known as the greatest architect. He lived from 1867-1959. What made him unique is that he designed every last detail in all of his houses. Usually architects do not design furniture and colors of each and every corner of the houses they work on.

A very notable feature of Taliesin West is that it blends in with the mountain it’s on. Its main foundations are made of rock taken from the mountain and concrete. Majority of the buildings of Taliesin West are one story high (along with almost every other house in the Phoenix area). Its colors are a brownish red, brown and gray. There are a few pools and fountains scattered throughout the complex. Wright used many geometric shapes and many different colors in his designs.

Wright did not like to waste space. Doorways and hallways in his house are very short and then open up to normal sized rooms. This made the room one is entering seem a lot larger. He left corners unwalled because he felt it restrained him. Most of the rooms in the house were originally left 1/4 unwalled. Eventually he agreed to put glass windows.

Pages and pages can be written about Taliesin West but it will never compare to seeing Frank Lloyd Wright’s skills in person.

After our last test, Maheen and I decided to go to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. We read about this museum earlier in the term because of its unique architecture. This visit reminded me of the movie Inception; similar to the concept of dream within a dream, the Guggenheim is basically art within art because the building itself is art. From the outside, the building looks like rings stacked on top of each other. When you go in the building, you could see a ramp spiraling all the way to the top. I found it interesting how the building contained many circles and curves: the passage through the museum was a spiral, the floor contained circular patterns, the building itself was spherical, the pillars were cylindrical, the entrance had a revolving door, and so on.

When I visited, the main exhibit was called Picasso Black and White, which focused on Picasso’s black and white paintings. His paintings lined the walls of the building. They were mainly abstract portraits of women in Picasso’s life, or reactions to war and tragedy. The unique design of the building enhanced this exhibit in many ways. The paintings were put up chronologically, so going up the spiral ramp made it feel like I was travelling through Picasso’s life. The ramp in the museum, as opposed to stairs or a flat floor, made this feeling possible. Ramps are a gradual method of going up, while stairs feel disjointed and uneven.  Therefore, the structure of the ramp allowed this connection to Picasso’s life to occur. Also, many of Picasso’s abstract portraits of women were filled with curves and circles. This matched well with the building’s architecture, which as I mentioned before, also contains many circles and curves.

There were other exhibits too, which were not about Picasso. One, for example, was about the abstract artwork of Vasily Kandinsky. These separate exhibits were displayed in different rooms beyond the main spherical structure. As you go up the ramp, you could choose whether to keep walking through the Picasso exhibit, or go to a different room to see another exhibit. When you go into a different exhibit, you sort of forget about the Picasso exhibit because the setting changes. You are no longer walking on a ramp and you are in a much more enclosed area. Then, once you leave the room, you are back to where you left off on the Picasso exhibit.

I really enjoyed this visit, but more because of the building rather than the art inside it. The building is what distinguishes this museum from any other museum in the world.

Hello,

Hitchcock was a great movie. The movie focused more on Alfred Hitchock’s personal issues during the making of the movie, Psycho, rather than Psycho itself. However, it did had the screening of the famous shower scene. The actress that was being attacked originally acted poorly with fake screams until Hitchcock decided to wield the knife instead of the trained stuntman. This was one of the most dramatic scenes of the movie that revealed Hitchcock’s nervous breakdown.

The actors in Hitchcock were very good. Hitchcock’s wife was an immense role and was executed well. Also, the “Hitchcock Blonde”

The movie had a references to other Alfred Hitchcock movies as well, for example the crow landing on his should at the end of the movie when he wonders what movie he would come up with next.

The comedy performance at BAM, on the other hand, I did not enjoy. However, the place was very nice.

The performers I listened to either made sexual jokes, or made fun of the themselves being fat.

The room had interesting lights everywhere and hanging by the entrance, a handmade map of the US.

Hey guys, here is our final project brought to you by me, Danny, and Ronny

ENJOY!

The film was amazing! There were many conflicts in the film that kept the audience attention. In the beginning when the guy hit his brother with the shovel made me jump from my seat. I thought the acting was great, especially Scarlet Johansson. I did not realize Hitchcock past away before I saw this film so I thought the actor playing Hitchcock was really Hitchcock. I think in a way that made the film more entertaining because I believe the actor was Hitchcock 100% so he acted perfectly. I noticed a lot of Hitchcock type scenes. One was when the camera pointed to Mrs. Hitchcock’s neck for a brief moment when she was bringing meat to her husband. It was like the episode we saw in class. Also, the scene where Hitchcock repeatedly stabbed Scarlet Johansson, that was similar to the scene of The Psycho. When Scarlet gave Hitchcock the candy corn, I thought of the scene of the husband carrying glowing milk to his wife. It was great learning about Hitchcock’s works before watching this film. There was the bird movie reference, North by Northwest reference, and many more.

I did not like the first two standup comedians. They were not funny and relied on sexual remarks for a quick laugh. The second comedian I hated the most. He talked fifteen minutes about a lemon. Who cares!! The host was okay. He was enthusiastic at least. Muhammad and I even had a simple conversation with him before the show. Unfortunately, I did not stay for the rest of the comedians. But the first two were not funny. The only reason why I laugh was because I was standing in front of a big metal garagelike door and everyone who stood in front of me was asked to move. But since there were no signs, the workers had to come every 5 minutes. Also, there was this lady who keep taking pictures with flash, when were we explicitly asked not to. It was funny watching people glare at her when she took pictures.

Hitchcock:

I LOVED this film! I was actually unfamiliar with Hitchcock and his works, so I felt that seeing clips in class of some of his movies/series was extremely helpful to provide as background information. I feel like some aspects of the movie can only be appreciated if you know certain things about Hitchcock. For instance, when we were watching the episode of his show during class, at one point, I remember as the wife was walking towards the husband with the meat in her hand, the camera was getting creepily closer to his back. This theme was revisited in the movie at one point when Hitchcock was approaching his wife and the camera focuses in on the back of her neck. Additionally, one trend in general about the clips we watched was a sense of violence and gore, or at least violence to be expected based on suspicious behaviors of the characters, such as when the man in one clip is bringing a glass of milk to his wife. The way he walks and the way the milk seems to glow seem to foreshadow sinister happenings. This gives us an insight into Hitchcock’s mind about how he enjoys examining violent acts. This is revisited in the movie several times. One time is when he gets frustrated during a shot of the shower scene in Psycho, so he goes ahead himself with the fake knife and pretends to hack away at the girl in the shower. Another time is near the end of the movie, during the first premiere of his film. Hitchcock stands outside the theatre, and when the shower scene comes on, he seems to be sort of “conducting” the screams of the audience.

Another thing I found to be really fascinating about the movie was the way in which Hitchcock seems to be a dynamic and static character at the same time. His facial expression never changes, whether he is angry, sad, happy, etc. He has one resting expression which follows him wherever he goes and whatever he does, yet he does seem to be emotional at the same time, which makes him dynamic! You can easily tell, because many times, either his voice would change or his actions indicate his emotions. One example is when he collects sand he finds in his bathroom and replaces his wife’s pills with it. His actions show that he is mad and that he wants her to realize how angry he is by showing her the sand in her pill bottle.

I was really impressed by the casting as well. I didn’t know that the real Hitchcock is no longer alive, and the resemblance between the actor who portrays him and Hitchcock himself is uncanny! I actually googled him on my phone during the movie, to figure out if Hitchcock himself was in the film. That was when I discovered that Hitchcock had passed away.

Standup comedy:

I thought the standup acts were atrocious. First of all, I was disappointed by the cramped space. There was not a single seat to be found. Secondly, there was a really long delay before the show started. My main objection was that the comics were not funny at all, in my opinion. They delivered very crude and cliche jokes that were not articulated well and not organized. Honestly, I thought the humor was too simple in some cases, or lacking completely with other jokes. I did not stay for the whole show, so I cannot speak for every performer. However, the first three performers, whom I did watch, seemed to have a very limited scope in terms of the jokes they told. They all had some sort of sexual reference, which can be very funny when articulated and presented well. I was discussing the comedy acts with Steve after we left and we began to discuss the influence of alcohol on the performers and on the audience. The lounge had a bar that was giving away free beers. This would explain the massive crowd. Additionally, because of all of the alcohol, we inferred that the comics would feel a lot less pressure to entertain the audience, most of which was throwing back beers every few minutes. The audience, which was clearly under the influence, would thus be very easily impressed.

I was honestly a bit nervous before going to the Christmas vs. Hanukkah debate. What I had pictured was two tables on a stage, with representatives on each side, presenting very formal arguments. I was wondering how this was going to be considered a comedy. However, I was quite pleasantly surprised after seeing what the event actually was. I was drawn in at first by the host who seemed very cheerful. I was also amused by the little musical medley the Christmas team sang as they were coming onstage. I found the “smell machine” to be quite amusing as well. I’ll now examine the positives and negatives of each side.

For the Hanukkah side:
I really enjoyed the first presenter’s t-shirt which said “JEWCY” in large colorful letters. Little elements like that make the delivery more amusing. The t-shirt shows that he’s not trying, but the play on words gave me a good chuckle. Although he had a lot of historical information which maybe became belaboring at some point, I did like the way he threw in jokes here and there casually, such as when he said that the Hanukkah side pretty much had the debate wrapped up, because the debate was taking place on the Upper West Side. The woman for the Hanukkah side seemed pretty passionate about the subject and I liked the way she got really into it. I thought her voice was maybe a bit too powerful for the occasion, however. She seemed extraordinarily loud, which maybe added to her appeal. I also enjoyed her parodies of different Christmas songs she chose to consider. The last man I found to be a tad awkward in some ways. I feel like his delivery was a bit forced at certain times. I also thought his little presentation was irrelevant in certain places. I felt the presentation was too long as well.

For the Christmas side:

I thought the man with the smell machine was very good at improving. He had very funny interjections while the other side was speaking. He also had very lively facial expressions and voice inflections, which for me was the majority of his appeal. The woman on the Christmas side I thought was the most boring of all of the performers. She seemed to show almost total disinterest, and her voice was very dull throughout. Her presentation was average, I think. I thought it was better than the one given by the Hanukkah side. However, I thought a lot of it was very trite and not thought-provoking at all. The last man on the Christmas side was quite funny. I really liked his presentation and it made sense. Even though it may have been very simple and possibly a bit corny, such as the different slides with denim shirts, his delivery impressed me to compensate.

In the end, I ended up choosing the Hanukkah side because I thought their jokes were more clever and in general, they had better delivery. I also thought that though they did have a lot of historical information, it was enough to warrant their arguments, which was partly the purpose of the debate, besides making the audience laugh.

I thought that the way to choose a winner, however, was maybe a bit ineffective, though it was clever and fun. I feel like there were probably many people who clapped for both. Additionally, I’m sure there are some acoustic issues in the room, which could have led to inaccurate readings of sound produced by the audience. However, it was a nice way to engage the audience, I think, especially since the debate itself did not do that too much. In certain places, certain comics did point out audience members, such as when the man with the “smell machine” made a crack about Ronny. The interview too was meant to engage the audience, though I felt that became counterproductive because of the two inconsiderate jerks in the audience who only made snide comments.

All in all, I was very thrilled with the event and thought it was very funny. This was actually the first time I saw a comedy act live, and I found the debate aspect of it to be very unique and thrilling. I will definitely try to attend the Showdown next year!

I was in love with the atmosphere at the Met. I can’t believe that I have been living in New York City for the past 11 years and I have visited the Lincoln Center area countless times, yet I had never been to the Met before this event. Everything about it looked regal, from the giant fountain outside to the interior that’s completely draped in velvet. Additionally, I thought the little cone-shaped paper cups and large metallic faucets were a nice touch. In terms of the auditorium and the opera itself, I was most impressed by the way the music coordinated so well with whatever was going on onstage. The entire time, I was thinking about how much practice that would take. Additionally, I found myself a little distracted by the little screen right by the stage which displayed the words being sung. I found myself constantly closing one eye and then the other, staring at the little sign, trying to test my vision. However, what I found really cool was how if one looks down one’s row, one cannot see the little screens with the words displayed on them that are in front of the people with whom one is sitting. You have to be directly in front of the little screen on the back of the seat in front of you in order to read the words, so you can only see your own. I remember for some time I found myself contemplating whether or not the screens were consciously installed in this way, maybe to create a more personalized experience for each viewer, and to create less distractions if the eyes of the viewers begin to wander?

I also liked the music score for the opera. I noticed that there was much dissonance in a variety of scenes, which was a clear indicator that some sort of conflict was occurring. I enjoyed the way this takes some guesswork away from the viewer. Additionally, I really enjoyed the set designs. My favorite in particular was at the very beginning when they were portraying people in the sea after the storm and there was a giant blue curtain-like cloth with projections of waves being cast onto it. I thought way in which the characters poking their heads through the projection made the scene seem very realistic. Additionally, later in the opera, a large group of people were pushing a raft down a river and there was a projection in the background of trees going by, to show motion. Such set designs really made me appreciate the way in which the production did an excellent job of bringing the audience into the scenes even though the scenes clearly take place outdoors. I also found this interesting because there was what seemed to be very hi-tech equipment used for these sorts of projections. This really contrasted with the structure of the opera house, both inside and out, which had a very old and regal appearance that you could have found in some aristocrat’s mansion in the nineteenth century. Thus, the regal appearance of the auditorium and building itself, when coupled with the technology making the scenes very realistic, has a very interesting dynamic. This shows two realms, essentially, one that attempts to convey the history of the building through architecture while the other embraces the Information Age.

I thought that all of the characters did a splendid job in terms of their articulation and acting skills. The costumes were beautiful and the characters sung beautifully. The one minor objection I had to this was that Arielle’s voice was extremely high pitched and kept jumping back and forth between odd intervals. Thus, whenever she sang anything, I just focused on the little screen in front of me that showed the lyrics. I found this to be a tad upsetting because of all of the characters, I found hers to be the most interesting to watch. She seemed to have no mass, such as in the beginning when she was performing very dangerous and swift stunts on the chandelier-like structure. In other parts, she seems to be floating away or walking along very thin surfaces. I wish I could have focused more on how she was moving, but I just had to keep looking down to follow along with the story.