For my cultural event this week I decided to go to the class movie showing. I had heard good things about New York Doll from my aunt, so I thought that would be a good movie to watch. I wasn't too excited about Citizen Cane, because I actually like the main character to be alive at the end of the movies I watch. Some may say that's not real, but I say to that, a lot more people live than die every day. I was okay with watching Amadeus, because my orchestra class started watching it in 9th grade, and while I saw the attempted suicide scene, and the burial of Mozart at the end, I didn't really see any of the in between parts and I was interested to see what happened. It was also a neat experience to be able to watch the movie with some understanding of cutting and shooting techniques, although I have to admit that I was focusing more on the actual goings on rather than specific zooms and such. I also think that it is important to add that I was in a most uncomfortable condition during the movie. The "theater" was great and quite familiar, but I wasn't feeling too well. I was ache all over and I had a whopping headache. When I got home, my mom found that I had a fever of 102, so I guess I had a right to be a little grumpy about driving all the way to Provo, sitting in the theater for 2hrs 45mins, walking back across the then menacing parking lot, and then driving the 30 mins back home. Yes, some of that torture could have been avoided if I had stayed on campus instead of returning home, but driving there was really a fairly menial part of my pains. That all sounds pretty whiny, but I'm really only saying it because my condition did have a great influence on my reaction to the film.
I got to the showing a little late, so I missed the part where Salieri tries to commit suicide, but that was okay, because as I mentioned, I had already seen that particular segment. I came in as the priest was asking Salieri for his confession. The little segments where the old Salieri explained why things happened really served to make his story more pitiable. Not only his dilapidated condition, but also to hear how much he loved Mozart's music when Mozart himself was apparently a twerp, and how Salieri was somewhat certifiable, due to the knowledge that he had played a large role in Mozart's death. I also got the idea from his way of expressing himself, almost without real depth of feeling, that he had spent a lot of time justifying his actions. I think that one of my favorite scenes with the old Salieri in it was when he was playing some of his melodies for the priest who recognized none of them until a piece by Mozart was played. Salieri did have an expression in this scene, one of irony. It is hard for me to say how well the characters were cast, because I didn't really have any background knowledge of the character of the actual people. I would hope that someone as talented as Mozart didn't really have such lax moral standards and such a humorously embarrassing laugh, but I read no book to confirm or deny such actions on his part. Another thing I didn't really enjoy was some of the language as it was yucky and almost modern in style. My biggest complaint was how long the movie was. I kept thinking, hurry up and die Mozart which is quite a terrible attitude in my opinion. I was sure the movie had gone on more than three hours and was quite surprised that it was fifteen minutes less. You can imagine my amazement when other people said they were surprised that the time had gone so fast. I think that any movie would have felt the same to me on Thursday night though.
I thought that it was neat to see a movie that sort of combined a lot of the things we have been talking about. It had classical music, opera and such. I did enjoy listening to the music and I was quite amazed by Mozart's talent when put in comparison with other composers like Salieri, who was surprised to see that there weren't any correction marks on the original music. While I sometimes wish that I was really good at just one thing so that I knew which direction I should take in life, I realized that for some it is a curse. Mozart's talent totally consumed him so that in the end he died due to spending so much time creating his music that he didn't care for himself. I think that his wife created a lot of problems for him, even if her motives were often good. Another of my favorite parts was to see Salieri have the opportunity to write Mozart's music for him when he was too weak. Salieri finally had a chance to see what inspiration was like and I gained respect for his skills as well, as he took down what Mozart said super fast. I liked the movie, but I was also relieved to finish it.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Class Week 7
I have to admit that I was pretty excited to talk about movies because I very much like them. One of the things said in class was about how movies are kind of the only truly modern art form because the medium was actually created fairly modernly. We did talk about the different inventions and such that led to the creation of film and such, but they really weren't the same medium. I really enjoyed watching the clips that marked the milestones in film like The Great Train Robbery and A Trip to the Moon. I think that I have seen the clip from the second one on Around the World in 80 Days, either that or it was something just like it. It is weird to think that one of these films was considered the first fantasy film and the other one was an "epic" narrative film, as it said in the book. The fantasy films of now are way different in their content and the film about the moon seems pretty tame in comparison. Although they lacked computer animation and a lot of the high tech stuff people expect and value now, they were really interesting. I can see how people would have been pretty shocked by the train film when there hadn't really been anything like it. In a way it would sort of the be like the suspense films of now. If compared directly it wouldn't be too bad, but for people who were brand new to the idea of moving pictures...
I also enjoyed learning more about the different shots that movie people use. I had never consciously thought about how they were used in film. Yet, when we looked at the picture of a man being filmed on an angle, I recognized that there was some one who was waking up or drugged or something like that even though I had never seen the movie. It was really helpful to see the different types of shots in action. They really helped me to recognize what I have seen in movies before. I think that one of my favorite shots is the match shot. At least, I really like it in Hours or whatever the show was called. The other day my family watched a show called Cloverfield. I'm going to pretty safely say that the filming technique was one of the most annoying I've ever seen used. It was completely in the point of view of whoever was holding the camera while Manhattan was being destroyed. Now, this wouldn't have been so bad if he had been a decent camera man, but as it was, the image was pretty much blurred the whole time. I guess that it was 'artistic,' but I'm really not a fan nor were the other people watching the movie with me. I hope that I will continue to be able to recognize the different film techniques so that I'll understand even more what the directors are trying to say.
I also enjoyed learning more about the different shots that movie people use. I had never consciously thought about how they were used in film. Yet, when we looked at the picture of a man being filmed on an angle, I recognized that there was some one who was waking up or drugged or something like that even though I had never seen the movie. It was really helpful to see the different types of shots in action. They really helped me to recognize what I have seen in movies before. I think that one of my favorite shots is the match shot. At least, I really like it in Hours or whatever the show was called. The other day my family watched a show called Cloverfield. I'm going to pretty safely say that the filming technique was one of the most annoying I've ever seen used. It was completely in the point of view of whoever was holding the camera while Manhattan was being destroyed. Now, this wouldn't have been so bad if he had been a decent camera man, but as it was, the image was pretty much blurred the whole time. I guess that it was 'artistic,' but I'm really not a fan nor were the other people watching the movie with me. I hope that I will continue to be able to recognize the different film techniques so that I'll understand even more what the directors are trying to say.
Reading Week 7
I don't really think that we had any reading assignments this week besides the one paper about museum film. It was interesting to read about, but I think I'll write about something from last week because I didn't write about reading, but about the theater style we were supposed to look up. I actually truly enjoyed the chapter about film because I'm sort of a very amateur movie buff. It was neat to look over the list of movies at the end of the chapter and realize that I have seen quite a few of them. Mostly the ones I have seen were of the 'feel good' variety, but hey, they are still classics. Some of the ones I have seen are, The African Queen, Amadeus, Babe, Beauty and the Beast, Ben-Hur, The Gods Must be Crazy, Gone with the Wind, The Great Train Robbery, It Happened One Night, Its a Wonderful Life, The Little Mermaid, The Little Princess, Mary Poppins, Miracle on 34th Street, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, North by Northwest, Sense and Sensibility, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Shane, Singin' in the Rain, Star Wars, The Ten Commandments, 2001:A Space Odyssey, and the Wizard of Oz. Yikes! I didn't mean to write all of them really, but as I went down the list and saw each title, I just couldn't leave any of them out. I really didn't write them all to fill space, though it will probably appear that way. Actually, I probably shouldn't have admitted that I have wasted so much time watching movies, but I love them. They help a person to escape their own problems and focus on something else. I almost want to give a synopsis on some of these movies because anyone who hasn't seen them really is missing out, but I'll spare you.
In twelfth grade for my English research paper I wrote about The Golden Age of Film Making (that was the title). I pretty much got way excited when stuff I learned about while researching was referred to in the chapter. My main focus during the paper was the Studio System and while that was really only mentioned once in the chapter, "U.S. v. Paramount anti-trust case, resulting in the end of the studio monopolies," it just brought a whole bunch of memories from the paper and my US history class to my mind. Many of the films my family owns aren't exactly new releases and I think that is why I really enjoy the old MGM, Paramount, RKO and Fox classics. I don't know if the acting was better back then, but I do think that some of the most all around talents were developed. The characters on musicals didn't just act, they sang and danced as well: Bing Crosby, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson, Fred Astaire. They also had some of the most debonair leading men: Cary Grant, Peter Lawford, Errol Flynn, etc. I think that sometimes the black and white movies make history seem like it was so long ago, and in black and white, but then I realize that my grandpa was around twenty when these movies were being made. My grandpa is here, now, and he certainly isn't colorless.
Besides all of the history stuff, I also enjoyed reading the conclusion section of the chapter. The section called Molder of Values sounded just like something my dad would say. "People in the film industry don't want to accept the responsibility that they had a hand in the way the world is loused up. But, for better of worse, the influence of the church, which used to be all-powerful, has been usurped by film. Films and television tell us the way we conduct our lives, what is right and wrong. When Burt Reynolds is drunk on beer in Hooper and racing cops in his rocket car, that reinforces the recklessness of the kids who've been drawn into the movie in the first place and are probably sitting in the theater drinking beer." My dad is always saying that if Hollywood isn't destroyed, Sodom and Gomorrah deserve an apology.
In twelfth grade for my English research paper I wrote about The Golden Age of Film Making (that was the title). I pretty much got way excited when stuff I learned about while researching was referred to in the chapter. My main focus during the paper was the Studio System and while that was really only mentioned once in the chapter, "U.S. v. Paramount anti-trust case, resulting in the end of the studio monopolies," it just brought a whole bunch of memories from the paper and my US history class to my mind. Many of the films my family owns aren't exactly new releases and I think that is why I really enjoy the old MGM, Paramount, RKO and Fox classics. I don't know if the acting was better back then, but I do think that some of the most all around talents were developed. The characters on musicals didn't just act, they sang and danced as well: Bing Crosby, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson, Fred Astaire. They also had some of the most debonair leading men: Cary Grant, Peter Lawford, Errol Flynn, etc. I think that sometimes the black and white movies make history seem like it was so long ago, and in black and white, but then I realize that my grandpa was around twenty when these movies were being made. My grandpa is here, now, and he certainly isn't colorless.
Besides all of the history stuff, I also enjoyed reading the conclusion section of the chapter. The section called Molder of Values sounded just like something my dad would say. "People in the film industry don't want to accept the responsibility that they had a hand in the way the world is loused up. But, for better of worse, the influence of the church, which used to be all-powerful, has been usurped by film. Films and television tell us the way we conduct our lives, what is right and wrong. When Burt Reynolds is drunk on beer in Hooper and racing cops in his rocket car, that reinforces the recklessness of the kids who've been drawn into the movie in the first place and are probably sitting in the theater drinking beer." My dad is always saying that if Hollywood isn't destroyed, Sodom and Gomorrah deserve an apology.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Realist Theatre
I thought that realist theatre sounded interesting, mainly because I recognized the name of one of the plays we talked about in class, namely Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. As I looked at a couple of different websites about Realist plays I realized that I haven't seen or read any Realist dramatic production. I'm not entirely sure that I would like to, as it sounds as though most of them are quite sad and normally I like to absorb things that at least end happily. One site put out by the Northern Virginia Community College seemed particularly helpful. It said that the Realist movement started in France, (while Wikipedia said that it started in Russia so I'm not sure which to believe) during the 19th century, specifically 1860. It came about largely because of the changes in society and also started out to change society. The worker class was very poorly treated and had no rights, along with other minorities such as women. Many realist plays used satire to speak out against such help society to realize that many things about it were flawed, discrimination being a small part of the problem. It said that the different governments promised to do something about the terrible economic and social conditions but wouldn't really do anything. Ibsen's plays, for example, had to do with many social issues such as "euthanasia, war and business, the role of women and syphilis." The cite said that realism came to be founded on three basic principles:
"1.truth resides in material objects we perceived to all five senses; truth is verified through science
2.the scientific method—observation—would solve everything
3.human problems were the highest were home of science"
One of the reasons these are so focused on science is that Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was one of the things that spurred the realist movement. Interestingly enough, another take off of Darwin was something the richer people benefited from as well. The idea of Social Darwinism said that people like the Rockefeller's, Carnegie's and Van Buren's were at the top because they were meant to be. That, like with wild animals, people rose to the top due to natural selection. Contrarily, the realist movement was more about the common man.
Some of the play writes of Realist theatre were Alexandre Dumas fil, who wrote 'Camille' which was dramatized; Emile Augier; Henrik Ibsen whose plays included such titles as 'Ghosts,' 'Pillars of Society,' 'Hedda Gabbler,' and 'Dolls House;' George Bernard Shaw who wrote, 'Arms and the Man,' 'Mrs. Warren's Profession,' 'Major Barbara,' and 'Pygmalion;' and Anton Chekhov, who wrote 'The Seagulls,' Three Sisters,' and 'The Cherry Orchard." The play that sounded the most interesting to me was Pygmalion, which was the basis for My Fair Lady which is one of my favorite musicals and uncommonly funny. It says that Pygmalion "shows the transforming of a flower girl into a society woman, and exposes the phoniness of society." The part about the phoniness of society seems to describe realism really well. It says that George Bernard Shaw was "uncommon for his witty humor," so I don't expect that I could expect all Realist plays to be like My Fair Lady, but I think that I might be interested in seeing some of them just to get a better idea of what realism is.
"1.truth resides in material objects we perceived to all five senses; truth is verified through science
2.the scientific method—observation—would solve everything
3.human problems were the highest were home of science"
One of the reasons these are so focused on science is that Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was one of the things that spurred the realist movement. Interestingly enough, another take off of Darwin was something the richer people benefited from as well. The idea of Social Darwinism said that people like the Rockefeller's, Carnegie's and Van Buren's were at the top because they were meant to be. That, like with wild animals, people rose to the top due to natural selection. Contrarily, the realist movement was more about the common man.
Some of the play writes of Realist theatre were Alexandre Dumas fil, who wrote 'Camille' which was dramatized; Emile Augier; Henrik Ibsen whose plays included such titles as 'Ghosts,' 'Pillars of Society,' 'Hedda Gabbler,' and 'Dolls House;' George Bernard Shaw who wrote, 'Arms and the Man,' 'Mrs. Warren's Profession,' 'Major Barbara,' and 'Pygmalion;' and Anton Chekhov, who wrote 'The Seagulls,' Three Sisters,' and 'The Cherry Orchard." The play that sounded the most interesting to me was Pygmalion, which was the basis for My Fair Lady which is one of my favorite musicals and uncommonly funny. It says that Pygmalion "shows the transforming of a flower girl into a society woman, and exposes the phoniness of society." The part about the phoniness of society seems to describe realism really well. It says that George Bernard Shaw was "uncommon for his witty humor," so I don't expect that I could expect all Realist plays to be like My Fair Lady, but I think that I might be interested in seeing some of them just to get a better idea of what realism is.
Class
I really liked talking about music for the last two class periods. I'm not very good with the history side of music because I haven't really studied that, but I've been in an orchestra since third grade and in music classes since seventh grade so I sort of know the theory part and some of the vocabulary. I play the violin, but I really enjoy all of the different timbres in 'classical' music and really any music. It was neat to listen to the way the music changed from one period to the next. My opinion probably isn't shared by most people, but I really like the Baroque style of music. I think the unique sound of the harpsichord adds a lot to the music. Songs with the harpsichord in them make me think of ladies in big fancy dresses at a ball all dancing very properly with their partners, and since I love that sort of history I like the music. Probably not all of the music composed back then was for dancing to, but I have to imagine a good portion of it was because the musicians were commissioned by the very rich who liked to give big parties. It was interesting to think about how the fact they were commissioned probably effected the music they produced. They had to do it in a certain style or their patrons would be most seriously displeased.
In class we talked about how the first time the Rite of Spring was played there were riots and people simply left the theater because they had been expecting a ballet and they didn't think that that was what they had received. Now Rite of Spring is a very well thought of composition. I personally quite like it. It was really interesting to hear the comment made in class about how we accept change much more easily now than they did then and it really is true. We look at the new and unusual as trendy simply because it is those things. I don't know why change is more accepted now, but it really does appear to be. I can't imagine the reactions of the people back then if they were to hear an electric guitar.
I think that I will have to listen to a few more songs from each era if I expect to be able to discern them just by hearing them. I think that I can handle Gregorian chants all right, but I get all mixed up with Baroque, Classical and all of the others. Sometimes when I'm driving I turn the radio station to 89.1 and I can tell that something is Baroque because it has harpsichord or something like that, but I don't always know what is going on. I get especially excited when a song is played that I have played in one of my orchestras.
In class we talked about how the first time the Rite of Spring was played there were riots and people simply left the theater because they had been expecting a ballet and they didn't think that that was what they had received. Now Rite of Spring is a very well thought of composition. I personally quite like it. It was really interesting to hear the comment made in class about how we accept change much more easily now than they did then and it really is true. We look at the new and unusual as trendy simply because it is those things. I don't know why change is more accepted now, but it really does appear to be. I can't imagine the reactions of the people back then if they were to hear an electric guitar.
I think that I will have to listen to a few more songs from each era if I expect to be able to discern them just by hearing them. I think that I can handle Gregorian chants all right, but I get all mixed up with Baroque, Classical and all of the others. Sometimes when I'm driving I turn the radio station to 89.1 and I can tell that something is Baroque because it has harpsichord or something like that, but I don't always know what is going on. I get especially excited when a song is played that I have played in one of my orchestras.
Museum of Art
This week I went to the BYU Museum of Art and look at the art work of Walter Wick. I had already been there before with my family, but I didn't really take a very good look at all of the interesting things there. When I first walked into the gallery area downstairs I almost turned back and decided to go a different time because it was so noisy. There were a whole bunch of kids crying and just so many people crammed into the relatively small space that it was a little bit overwhelming. I assume that some exhibitions wouldn't be like that, but then I realized that for me it added to the experience. It was actually really great to hear all of the kids exclaiming over different paintings and the things they could discover in them. Admittedly I could have done without the crying. It was also nice that section that housed Wick's work wasn't terribly spread out.
It was interesting to see the contrast between his misty water pictures and the pictures that showcased some of his I Spy sorts of things. I really liked both of them. One of the pictures was of a abandoned soccer field in a water saturated field. At first when I looked at it I say just that. Then I read the sign by it and looked at it with a completely new perspective. I could really see how the reflection or the goal post and the goal post itself formed a rectangle that seemed to cut a section out of the picture. It was sort of an eye illusion. The other pictures were equally thought provoking. They had fairly similar subject matter and would probably have looked like the same colors of squares from far back, but up close each of them was unique.
Another section in the exhibition I really liked was a group of pictures that were from his science book. They were pictures of snowflakes, a pin floating on water, an egg balanced on the edge of a bottle with two forks sticking out of it, a water droplet hitting the table and a few others. I didn't know that snowflakes were really shaped quite exquisitely. I mean, it's hard to imagine that such tiny, puffy things could be so intricate on a more microscopic level. The egg balancing on a bottle was an interesting picture because it made me want to go home and attempt to perform the seemingly impossible task. This group of pictures was so interesting because I know they were photographs, and they looked real but then again they didn't. It's sort of like the pictures of Mt. Timpanogus that are so pretty they don't seem like they can be real.
I really like the beauty and the beast picture and the sand castle picture inside the other section of Walter Wicks' work. The beauty and the beast picture was really pretty and the other was creative with figure action nights and other toys dotting a sandcastle in different knightly positions. Not only did Wicks have to take a great picture for much of his artwork, he also had to set up the intricate (yes I know that I have used that word twice, but it really fits in both cases) scenes to take the pictures of. Beside one picture there was an explanation of how he had to use salad tongs to situate the different animals in a triangle-shaped mirror room. He used common household things to create many of his pictures: salt shakers, pie tins, dials for stoves, baseballs, jar lids, etc, etc, etc. It was super fun to discover the different things that the plaques near each picture said to look for. I don't remember ever owning a real I Spy book, but sometimes we would get them from the library when I was a kid. I have to admit it's pretty frustrating when you can't find something. I didn't have a whole lot of time in the museum because I had to get someplace else, but I could probably have spent a couple more hours trying to find the different items in each picture.
It was interesting to see the contrast between his misty water pictures and the pictures that showcased some of his I Spy sorts of things. I really liked both of them. One of the pictures was of a abandoned soccer field in a water saturated field. At first when I looked at it I say just that. Then I read the sign by it and looked at it with a completely new perspective. I could really see how the reflection or the goal post and the goal post itself formed a rectangle that seemed to cut a section out of the picture. It was sort of an eye illusion. The other pictures were equally thought provoking. They had fairly similar subject matter and would probably have looked like the same colors of squares from far back, but up close each of them was unique.
Another section in the exhibition I really liked was a group of pictures that were from his science book. They were pictures of snowflakes, a pin floating on water, an egg balanced on the edge of a bottle with two forks sticking out of it, a water droplet hitting the table and a few others. I didn't know that snowflakes were really shaped quite exquisitely. I mean, it's hard to imagine that such tiny, puffy things could be so intricate on a more microscopic level. The egg balancing on a bottle was an interesting picture because it made me want to go home and attempt to perform the seemingly impossible task. This group of pictures was so interesting because I know they were photographs, and they looked real but then again they didn't. It's sort of like the pictures of Mt. Timpanogus that are so pretty they don't seem like they can be real.
I really like the beauty and the beast picture and the sand castle picture inside the other section of Walter Wicks' work. The beauty and the beast picture was really pretty and the other was creative with figure action nights and other toys dotting a sandcastle in different knightly positions. Not only did Wicks have to take a great picture for much of his artwork, he also had to set up the intricate (yes I know that I have used that word twice, but it really fits in both cases) scenes to take the pictures of. Beside one picture there was an explanation of how he had to use salad tongs to situate the different animals in a triangle-shaped mirror room. He used common household things to create many of his pictures: salt shakers, pie tins, dials for stoves, baseballs, jar lids, etc, etc, etc. It was super fun to discover the different things that the plaques near each picture said to look for. I don't remember ever owning a real I Spy book, but sometimes we would get them from the library when I was a kid. I have to admit it's pretty frustrating when you can't find something. I didn't have a whole lot of time in the museum because I had to get someplace else, but I could probably have spent a couple more hours trying to find the different items in each picture.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Reading Week 5
Last year in English we learned a lot about theater and I didn't even know it. We had a list of vocabulary terms and they included such things as Deux ex Machina, catharsis, and plot. We didn't really connect them to the theatre even though we did read plays, Fences, Othello and a Man for All Seasons being the foremost in my mind. In the book it says, "A play in a book is only the shadow of a play and not even a clear shadow of it....The printed script of a play is hardly more than an architect's blueprint of a house not yet built or [a house] built and destroyed. The color, the grace and levitation, the structural pattern in motion, the quick interplay of live beings, suspended like fitful lightning in a cloud, these things are the play, not words on paper nor thoughts and ideas fo an author." I completely agree with this quote. In English we always watch a video of the play after we read it. It really does give a better idea of the characters than just words on a paper can, though they be quite lovely. Also, with Shakespeare, it is sometimes easier to tell what some of his words mean when someone else is saying them, with what inflection they are saying them.
Later on in the chapter, it says, "In both tradgedy and comedy, it is the nature of the balance between the strengths and weaknesses of the characters and the deserved or undeserved nature of the catastrophe taht determines whether the result is tragic or comic. With minor editing of character and situation, for example, tragic Othello becomes comic Othello." It goes on to itemize how this seemingly unseemly thing could come about. It just does seem that a man killing his wife could be funny, but they do a pretty good job of pleading their case. It's pretty interesting and I can see how several other plays could be made humorous.
Somewhere it talks about how due to television and other diversions the viewing of plays has gone down. I actually really like to see plays, but a lot of the time they are more expensive than I have the stomache for. My mom used to sew costumes for a local Junior High's plays and we would get free tickets. The plays we saw there were better than some of the ones my High School put on.
Later on in the chapter, it says, "In both tradgedy and comedy, it is the nature of the balance between the strengths and weaknesses of the characters and the deserved or undeserved nature of the catastrophe taht determines whether the result is tragic or comic. With minor editing of character and situation, for example, tragic Othello becomes comic Othello." It goes on to itemize how this seemingly unseemly thing could come about. It just does seem that a man killing his wife could be funny, but they do a pretty good job of pleading their case. It's pretty interesting and I can see how several other plays could be made humorous.
Somewhere it talks about how due to television and other diversions the viewing of plays has gone down. I actually really like to see plays, but a lot of the time they are more expensive than I have the stomache for. My mom used to sew costumes for a local Junior High's plays and we would get free tickets. The plays we saw there were better than some of the ones my High School put on.
Class Week 5
I really liked talking about dance this week. I dabbled in Jazz, ballet, tap and ballroom when I was younger but I got too tall and too old for the level I was dancing at, so I quite. I have to admit that I wasn't very good and pretty much had to watch the other dancers so that I could remember what to do even at the concerts. One of my favorite shows is So You Think You Can Dance and it was really interesting to learn about some of the things that I have seen while watching.
I really didn't know much about the history of dance until now. It is so interesting to see how the arts really do mesh together. I'd never thought about the dancing style beginning influenced by painting and visa versa like Martha Graham was influenced by the cubist style, but it really makes sense that they would have an effect on each other. While I was reading, I was pretty worried because I couldn't really picture in my mind what was written in the book. The diagrams helped, but I was relieved when we watched some dancing because I could pick out the cabriole and the entrachats. I kind of wish that I had attended the ballet after I knew some of the movements so that I would have had a better idea of what was going on. I really like the excerpt from Swan Lake that we watched and I'm eager to see the whole ballet someday. I have no idea how they continued to smile while executing steps that have to cause some great strain and even pain. It was really interesting to have somebody who had danced ballet to tell the class about the way point your feet and the rigorous training both ballet and modern dancers complete.
The Thriller segment we watched was also interesting. It was neat to sort of dissect it using the elements of dance. It really does add to the viewing when you know that the way they choreograph, costume, use music, and assign roles really is thought out to add to the experience. The balloon dance was also cool. I thought that it was both a narrative and diversion. It's really nifty that early dancers were willing to step out of the box even though they were criticized so that we can have that sort of dance now. It was amazing to see them use their balloon props in really unique ways. They had amazing flexibility in their feet and arms.
I really didn't know much about the history of dance until now. It is so interesting to see how the arts really do mesh together. I'd never thought about the dancing style beginning influenced by painting and visa versa like Martha Graham was influenced by the cubist style, but it really makes sense that they would have an effect on each other. While I was reading, I was pretty worried because I couldn't really picture in my mind what was written in the book. The diagrams helped, but I was relieved when we watched some dancing because I could pick out the cabriole and the entrachats. I kind of wish that I had attended the ballet after I knew some of the movements so that I would have had a better idea of what was going on. I really like the excerpt from Swan Lake that we watched and I'm eager to see the whole ballet someday. I have no idea how they continued to smile while executing steps that have to cause some great strain and even pain. It was really interesting to have somebody who had danced ballet to tell the class about the way point your feet and the rigorous training both ballet and modern dancers complete.
The Thriller segment we watched was also interesting. It was neat to sort of dissect it using the elements of dance. It really does add to the viewing when you know that the way they choreograph, costume, use music, and assign roles really is thought out to add to the experience. The balloon dance was also cool. I thought that it was both a narrative and diversion. It's really nifty that early dancers were willing to step out of the box even though they were criticized so that we can have that sort of dance now. It was amazing to see them use their balloon props in really unique ways. They had amazing flexibility in their feet and arms.
Eight Men Out
On Tuesday night I went to Eight Men Out, a movie they were screening at the Orem Public Library. I wasn't too sure that I was going to like it, because as much as I wish I were a sports fan and less mushy-minded, I'm really more a mystery, historical romance, comedy movie type of girl, and I knew that Eight Men Out was a baseball movie. In fact, I sort of have a hard time watching baseball unless I know someone that is playing because it seems like there are only a few minutes of action and then a lot of waiting. I guess I haven't really been exposed to watching sports much. The best game of baseball I've ever seen took place in South Carolina when I was watching my cousins husband and his military team play. They were super speedy and half of the balls they hit were home runs. So, the nice thing about watching a sport in a movie is that they don't have any of the waiting time and only show the highlights of the supposed game.
Eight Men Out is about the 1919 White Sox scandal. When I read that on the sign I figured it had to be about some team throwing a game for money and I was right. The movie starts with a game scene. The White Sox team are out playing in the hot sun, while their manager is inside with a bunch of newspaper men. There is a great contrast between the condition of the players and their master. He has all of this food and fine wine and is dressed impeccably. He is also plump from the great spoils he has obviously obtained as manager. The men however are in their dusty uniforms, sweating and on the thin side. It is obvious they love the game though. After the game they had be.en promised a bonus and instead they got flat champagne. During the game a few men in the stands kept commenting on who they thought they could get to work for them to throw the world series. The White Sox were considered unbeatable so a lot of people would be betting on them to win. If the people who paid the White Sox to lose bet against them, they could make a pretty penny. The players were pretty put out with their manager and they weren't being paid enough, so it was easy for the gamblers to draw a few of them into the plan. The gamblers also included some even larger gambler fish so that they would have the funds to bet and pay some of the players who wanted their cut at the start. It was really sad, because it was obvious that some of players didn't want to join, but they felt that there was no other option. One of the players, Buck Weaver, refused to be a part of the operation when he was approached. At the games he did his best, but both of the main pitchers had joined in so he was pretty much fighting a losing battle. A couple of newspaper men noticed the first game of the World Series that something fishy was going on, and they decided that they would each write down any plays they felt there was something wrong with and the player who had messed and compare their lists at the end. They came up with about six players they felt were purposely trying to throw the game. It was pretty much depressing to watch as the team struggled within themselves to try and win but kept losing even though the people around them said they were the best club they had ever seen. The best part of the whole movie was when the pitcher who wasn't in on the racket, Joe Jackson, pitched the third game. He struck out quite a few players and even some of the players who were trying to lose got behind him. I think it had a lot to do with their trainer who knew that something was going on and tried to talk to the team. It was basically the team's shining moment. After a few games they purposely lost, they realized that they weren't going to get paid, because the people who were handling the money kept putting any money they won back into the gambling circuit. Most of the players decided against continuing and one of the pitchers who had agreed to the scam just quit and actually did his part. This made the gambling people rather unhappy as they lost quite a bit of money and they sent someone to threaten the next pitcher's wife. He, of course, capitulated and the team lost their fifth game which knocked them out of the tournament. At this point the newspaper men delivered their evidence to the officials. Eight men were picked out as suspicious, but two of them actually had nothing to do with the scam. Their names were Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson. Joe really had had no knowledge and Buck knew but wasn't a part. He didn't turn his teammates in because he thought they would decide to be honest on their own. As the baseball player's trial was going on, the gamblers happily left the country on the proceeds. I have to admit that pretty much ticked me off. So did the fact that the players who spearheaded the crime were so stinking smug. I wanted to punch each of them in the nose. Unexpectedly, the court ruled not guilty, but that wasn't the end. A special commissioner the manager of the team had hired said that any member of a club who took a bribe to throw a game or knew of his teammates taking one would never play in the major leagues again. At the end of the movie it shows a minor league game. A few people in the stands wonder who the man is that is trouncing their team. One of them says it's Joe Jackson. The others don't believe him, but he insists it is and says that he was one of the players who threw the World Series. Buck Weaver happens to be sitting next to the group and denies that it is Joe saying he was one of the greatest players of all time. It's pretty much terrible that the only thing people remember about the fantastic group is that they threw the World Series.
I thought that it was actually a really good show, even if it was somewhat depressing. The actors did a good job and there were a few pretty big names. It was especially impressive to see how well Hollywood did at making them believably good baseball players. There was a bit too much swearing for my taste, but I guess it wouldn't be believable baseball history if there wasn't some swearing. Of course, while it did show that the players each had a humongous wad of tobacco in their mouths none of them that I could see had rotten teeth and that isn't very realistic. I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed it even if some parts made me mad enough to spit.
The atmosphere of the Orem Library was really great. I'm pretty comfortable with going there, because I go pretty much every week to rent some of their old movies for a dollar. I wasn't expecting the theatre to be so small and their to be so few people, but that was also nice in a way. I hope I wasn't a detriment to the six other people's experience because I kept coughing, but I guess I won't worry too much because a few of the smaller kids there kept getting up and running down the aisles and on the stage when they got restless. It was great. I had a really good view of the screen and I could hear pretty well. I'm actually interested in attending some more of these screening things because I love older movies and free is quite the best price I know of.
Eight Men Out is about the 1919 White Sox scandal. When I read that on the sign I figured it had to be about some team throwing a game for money and I was right. The movie starts with a game scene. The White Sox team are out playing in the hot sun, while their manager is inside with a bunch of newspaper men. There is a great contrast between the condition of the players and their master. He has all of this food and fine wine and is dressed impeccably. He is also plump from the great spoils he has obviously obtained as manager. The men however are in their dusty uniforms, sweating and on the thin side. It is obvious they love the game though. After the game they had be.en promised a bonus and instead they got flat champagne. During the game a few men in the stands kept commenting on who they thought they could get to work for them to throw the world series. The White Sox were considered unbeatable so a lot of people would be betting on them to win. If the people who paid the White Sox to lose bet against them, they could make a pretty penny. The players were pretty put out with their manager and they weren't being paid enough, so it was easy for the gamblers to draw a few of them into the plan. The gamblers also included some even larger gambler fish so that they would have the funds to bet and pay some of the players who wanted their cut at the start. It was really sad, because it was obvious that some of players didn't want to join, but they felt that there was no other option. One of the players, Buck Weaver, refused to be a part of the operation when he was approached. At the games he did his best, but both of the main pitchers had joined in so he was pretty much fighting a losing battle. A couple of newspaper men noticed the first game of the World Series that something fishy was going on, and they decided that they would each write down any plays they felt there was something wrong with and the player who had messed and compare their lists at the end. They came up with about six players they felt were purposely trying to throw the game. It was pretty much depressing to watch as the team struggled within themselves to try and win but kept losing even though the people around them said they were the best club they had ever seen. The best part of the whole movie was when the pitcher who wasn't in on the racket, Joe Jackson, pitched the third game. He struck out quite a few players and even some of the players who were trying to lose got behind him. I think it had a lot to do with their trainer who knew that something was going on and tried to talk to the team. It was basically the team's shining moment. After a few games they purposely lost, they realized that they weren't going to get paid, because the people who were handling the money kept putting any money they won back into the gambling circuit. Most of the players decided against continuing and one of the pitchers who had agreed to the scam just quit and actually did his part. This made the gambling people rather unhappy as they lost quite a bit of money and they sent someone to threaten the next pitcher's wife. He, of course, capitulated and the team lost their fifth game which knocked them out of the tournament. At this point the newspaper men delivered their evidence to the officials. Eight men were picked out as suspicious, but two of them actually had nothing to do with the scam. Their names were Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson. Joe really had had no knowledge and Buck knew but wasn't a part. He didn't turn his teammates in because he thought they would decide to be honest on their own. As the baseball player's trial was going on, the gamblers happily left the country on the proceeds. I have to admit that pretty much ticked me off. So did the fact that the players who spearheaded the crime were so stinking smug. I wanted to punch each of them in the nose. Unexpectedly, the court ruled not guilty, but that wasn't the end. A special commissioner the manager of the team had hired said that any member of a club who took a bribe to throw a game or knew of his teammates taking one would never play in the major leagues again. At the end of the movie it shows a minor league game. A few people in the stands wonder who the man is that is trouncing their team. One of them says it's Joe Jackson. The others don't believe him, but he insists it is and says that he was one of the players who threw the World Series. Buck Weaver happens to be sitting next to the group and denies that it is Joe saying he was one of the greatest players of all time. It's pretty much terrible that the only thing people remember about the fantastic group is that they threw the World Series.
I thought that it was actually a really good show, even if it was somewhat depressing. The actors did a good job and there were a few pretty big names. It was especially impressive to see how well Hollywood did at making them believably good baseball players. There was a bit too much swearing for my taste, but I guess it wouldn't be believable baseball history if there wasn't some swearing. Of course, while it did show that the players each had a humongous wad of tobacco in their mouths none of them that I could see had rotten teeth and that isn't very realistic. I was actually surprised by how much I enjoyed it even if some parts made me mad enough to spit.
The atmosphere of the Orem Library was really great. I'm pretty comfortable with going there, because I go pretty much every week to rent some of their old movies for a dollar. I wasn't expecting the theatre to be so small and their to be so few people, but that was also nice in a way. I hope I wasn't a detriment to the six other people's experience because I kept coughing, but I guess I won't worry too much because a few of the smaller kids there kept getting up and running down the aisles and on the stage when they got restless. It was great. I had a really good view of the screen and I could hear pretty well. I'm actually interested in attending some more of these screening things because I love older movies and free is quite the best price I know of.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Music and the Spoken Word Rehersal
Okay, so I'm not exactly sure what it was called, but my family and I went to Salt Lake on Thursday to see the rehearsal of the Tabernacle Choir and the Orchestra on Temple Square in the Conference Center. It was in preparation for the 80th anniversary of Music and the Spoken Word and for the 24th of July. I have played the violin since I was in 3rd grade and I sing in our ward choir, so I know the basics pretty well. The concert was completely enjoyable and from what I know I found no fault with the illustrious Tabernacle Choir or the grand orchestra accompanying them. Another great part of the evening was our seats. We were in the middle section on the floor, pretty near the front. We had a fantastic view of the orchestra and the choir and also the Organ.
So the object was music and there were all sorts of genres involved. I'm not very good with recall, so I'm not sure of all of the names, but there was some classical and some African American spiritual and some hymn like music. It represented all of the hard work of this particular choir and orchestra and of those of the past and it represented them very well. Even though it was a rehearsal they only restarted a song one time. I'm not really sure what the medium constitutes for as singing orchestra affair. The medium could be all of the instruments or the music for the orchestra, but I'm not sure if the medium for the choir is their voices or their bodies which produce the sound and the music.
I would have to say that they are the most organized choir I have ever seen. Every woman is wearing the same thing and ever man is. On Thursday the women wore a magenta dress and a sparkly silver necklace and the men were in black suits and bow ties; the members of the orchestra all wore black as is customary. The visual aspect was very pleasing, but that isn't really what I should be concerned with when the object is music I suppose. They all stood up together and it sounded like two or four voices depending on how many parts were required at different points in the music. I know that my choir in church has definite struggles saying our S's together and enunciating and on a good day there are only twenty of us. The Tabernacle choir has, well I'm not sure how many there are in it other than there are assuredly more than twenty.
We were a little bit late and the first song we came in on was about halfway done. The first song we heard in its entirety was really incredible. It actually was probably one of my favorites because it was really uplifting. It involved all of the different players, choir and orchestra. The next piece was equally enjoyable. It was Come Thou Fount, which has always been one of my favorite songs. It was different from the first in that it was more still. The first song had sort of a military beat to it. Two of the songs at the concert included a male soloist. I think they were Rockin' my Soul in the Bosom of Abraham and Go Down Moses or something like unto it. They were great proof that the choir is excellent in all areas, even as backup singers. I have to say though, that one of the most exciting parts of the program was when the organist did a solo. He played a lot of the piece with his feet. My sister and I decided it was impossible even though we were watching him carry it off beautifully. They ended with God Be With You Til We Meet Again, which of course was quite fitting. They had some other songs such as I'm trying to Be like Jesus and all of them were well done.
It is programs like these that really inspire me to become better at my talents. I couldn't help wishing that I had a better voice so that I could be a part of the choir someday, or that I was more willing to practice so that I could be a part of the orchestra. I have to admit that some of the appeal comes from the fact that they have traveled all over the world and are internationally renowned, but also I can't imagine how great the camaraderie would be in the group. I like singing. It was definitely worth the drive to Salt Lake.
So the object was music and there were all sorts of genres involved. I'm not very good with recall, so I'm not sure of all of the names, but there was some classical and some African American spiritual and some hymn like music. It represented all of the hard work of this particular choir and orchestra and of those of the past and it represented them very well. Even though it was a rehearsal they only restarted a song one time. I'm not really sure what the medium constitutes for as singing orchestra affair. The medium could be all of the instruments or the music for the orchestra, but I'm not sure if the medium for the choir is their voices or their bodies which produce the sound and the music.
I would have to say that they are the most organized choir I have ever seen. Every woman is wearing the same thing and ever man is. On Thursday the women wore a magenta dress and a sparkly silver necklace and the men were in black suits and bow ties; the members of the orchestra all wore black as is customary. The visual aspect was very pleasing, but that isn't really what I should be concerned with when the object is music I suppose. They all stood up together and it sounded like two or four voices depending on how many parts were required at different points in the music. I know that my choir in church has definite struggles saying our S's together and enunciating and on a good day there are only twenty of us. The Tabernacle choir has, well I'm not sure how many there are in it other than there are assuredly more than twenty.
We were a little bit late and the first song we came in on was about halfway done. The first song we heard in its entirety was really incredible. It actually was probably one of my favorites because it was really uplifting. It involved all of the different players, choir and orchestra. The next piece was equally enjoyable. It was Come Thou Fount, which has always been one of my favorite songs. It was different from the first in that it was more still. The first song had sort of a military beat to it. Two of the songs at the concert included a male soloist. I think they were Rockin' my Soul in the Bosom of Abraham and Go Down Moses or something like unto it. They were great proof that the choir is excellent in all areas, even as backup singers. I have to say though, that one of the most exciting parts of the program was when the organist did a solo. He played a lot of the piece with his feet. My sister and I decided it was impossible even though we were watching him carry it off beautifully. They ended with God Be With You Til We Meet Again, which of course was quite fitting. They had some other songs such as I'm trying to Be like Jesus and all of them were well done.
It is programs like these that really inspire me to become better at my talents. I couldn't help wishing that I had a better voice so that I could be a part of the choir someday, or that I was more willing to practice so that I could be a part of the orchestra. I have to admit that some of the appeal comes from the fact that they have traveled all over the world and are internationally renowned, but also I can't imagine how great the camaraderie would be in the group. I like singing. It was definitely worth the drive to Salt Lake.
Class Week 4
I am just going to say that class on Wednesday was pretty challenging for me. I felt like I had missed day or that I wasn't studying something we were supposed to be studying. It seemed like all of a sudden people knew everything. When we were asked what about different works made them from a certain time period and people knew the answers I knew I was in big trouble. I think I was starting to catch on by the end of class, but only because I really invested myself in trying to figure out what was going on. As usual I thought it was really interesting. Also, I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but the same tapestry that was on our quiz was on Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I pretty much jumped out of my seat to tell my brother about it and how the unicorn symbolized purity and because it was surrounded by a fence it specifically symbolized Mary. I love being able to tell stuff like that.
It is really interesting for me to learn about the different Mediums artists used. I had never even heard about half of them before our class. It kind of gives me a new appreciation for the work of artists. I really value the ability to erase when I'm drawing because I almost never get something right the first time. To me fresco sounds particularly difficult in that regard, but I've also tried oil paints and those are no cake walk either. I mean, I haven't had any tutoring or education in those types of things, but I sort of like to dabble in the arts.
Another interesting thing for me to learn about in class was the different 'isms' they developed during Modernism. In my English class last year we talked about the different eras of writing, and around the same time period there were lots of different 'isms' in writing as well. I'm not sure which of the 'isms' is my favorite, but I do know that I kind of liked the Cubism and Surrealism pictures. That might just be because I have heard of Picasso and Salvador Dali.
It is really interesting for me to learn about the different Mediums artists used. I had never even heard about half of them before our class. It kind of gives me a new appreciation for the work of artists. I really value the ability to erase when I'm drawing because I almost never get something right the first time. To me fresco sounds particularly difficult in that regard, but I've also tried oil paints and those are no cake walk either. I mean, I haven't had any tutoring or education in those types of things, but I sort of like to dabble in the arts.
Another interesting thing for me to learn about in class was the different 'isms' they developed during Modernism. In my English class last year we talked about the different eras of writing, and around the same time period there were lots of different 'isms' in writing as well. I'm not sure which of the 'isms' is my favorite, but I do know that I kind of liked the Cubism and Surrealism pictures. That might just be because I have heard of Picasso and Salvador Dali.
Reading Week 4 continued
Alright, so I already did my reading blog for this week and it was pretty long, so I basically refuse to write more than four sentences about the artists we were supposed to look up. Just kidding in a way, I don't refuse exactly, but I'm not going to make this entry very long. I looked at works by Durer, Van Eyck and Caravaggio. I thought that Durer and Van Eyck were very similar in the fact that they both used a lot of symbolism in their works. Of the two of them I really like Van Eyck because of his use of color. All of his paintings use a darker value, and yet they seem somewhat bright and defined to me. Caravaggio is the one we talked about using Chiaroscuro. The thing that caught my attention in his paintings is how much emotion is infused in them. Through the faces of his subjects what they are feeling is made obvious; even without a background story you can tell their basic emotions.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Reading Week 4
This week I'll write about the reading I did in Chapter 16. I had never thought about the fact that you have to view sculpture in two different ways. I think that sculpture really is unique because it is tangible and because you have to walk around it, view it form different angles, to get the whole experience. I've never been in a position that I could touch a great work, but it sounds pretty nifty when Finn describes it. "There must have been a heavenly spirit in Michelangelo's fingers as they guided his tools, and I felt that spirit now transmitted like electric impulses through my fingers into my heart. I ran my hand again and again over those surfaces I could reach. It took only moments but it was a timeless experience." It was interesting to me that Michelangelo thought that he was just beginning to learn his craft as he died. I really am more of a realist I guess, because I really like his Pieta, and while I admire his skill still, the Rondanini Pieta isn't my favorite. At this point, I like his "polished words," better even if his later work "betrays all the anguish and genius of this great artist's last years and expresses a nobility and poignant depth."
For a tenth grade English project on veterinarians I sculpted a pair of hands cupping a puppy. I thought it was pretty hard, you know, fairly realistic. Then I see these sculptures carved out of marble, that look just like a living person. Holy cow, how did they do that? All three of the sculptors the chapter talks about had an interest in art in the very beginning. It's a good thing that their talents were encouraged or the world would be deprived of some very great visual and apparently physical, experiences. I like the sentence about Bernini's skill, "the great Italian Baroque sculptor of the seventeenth century, created the illusion of soft flesh or silken cloth in solid marble with breathtaking credibility." I used some sort of clay for my veterinarian's hands, and they didn't look soft. In fact the puppy's fur looked somewhat sharp. The greats used marble, metamorphosed limestone, as their medium, and it looks far more supple than my clay creation when carved by their talented hands.
I have to admit that I've always been a little afraid of sculpture, especially that of 'Greek' origin. The naked and nude bodies kind of make me uncomfortable. I think it might be because of what my mom calls a Victorian upbringing. For example, my mom's mother didn't even approve of talk about bathrooms and my mom was absolutely shocked when at a movie, her date leaned over to her and said, "At least you don't have to urinate." I don't remember why he said that, as I never quite understood that part of the story, but honestly, it even makes me uncomfortable to write that. I mean, what if someone just skimmed my blog and saw that word on the page causing them to think that it was simply disgusting. Anyway, the point is, my mom passed that same sort of upbringing on to me. The really weird thing though, is that one of my grandma's favorite paintings was one that she called 'Grab Your Hat and Let's Go,' which was of a woman donning only a hat. My family isn't uncultured I guess. At the start of the chapter there is a quote that it says is supposed to help people who have my same sort of problem. "To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes and the word implies some of the embarrassment which most of us feel in that condition. The word nude, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous and confident body: the body re-formed." I don't really know if that helps my phobia, but I'll try to remind myself of it when I view sculpture of, in my opinion, a provocative nature.
For a tenth grade English project on veterinarians I sculpted a pair of hands cupping a puppy. I thought it was pretty hard, you know, fairly realistic. Then I see these sculptures carved out of marble, that look just like a living person. Holy cow, how did they do that? All three of the sculptors the chapter talks about had an interest in art in the very beginning. It's a good thing that their talents were encouraged or the world would be deprived of some very great visual and apparently physical, experiences. I like the sentence about Bernini's skill, "the great Italian Baroque sculptor of the seventeenth century, created the illusion of soft flesh or silken cloth in solid marble with breathtaking credibility." I used some sort of clay for my veterinarian's hands, and they didn't look soft. In fact the puppy's fur looked somewhat sharp. The greats used marble, metamorphosed limestone, as their medium, and it looks far more supple than my clay creation when carved by their talented hands.
I have to admit that I've always been a little afraid of sculpture, especially that of 'Greek' origin. The naked and nude bodies kind of make me uncomfortable. I think it might be because of what my mom calls a Victorian upbringing. For example, my mom's mother didn't even approve of talk about bathrooms and my mom was absolutely shocked when at a movie, her date leaned over to her and said, "At least you don't have to urinate." I don't remember why he said that, as I never quite understood that part of the story, but honestly, it even makes me uncomfortable to write that. I mean, what if someone just skimmed my blog and saw that word on the page causing them to think that it was simply disgusting. Anyway, the point is, my mom passed that same sort of upbringing on to me. The really weird thing though, is that one of my grandma's favorite paintings was one that she called 'Grab Your Hat and Let's Go,' which was of a woman donning only a hat. My family isn't uncultured I guess. At the start of the chapter there is a quote that it says is supposed to help people who have my same sort of problem. "To be naked is to be deprived of our clothes and the word implies some of the embarrassment which most of us feel in that condition. The word nude, on the other hand, carries, in educated usage, no uncomfortable overtone. The vague image it projects into the mind is not of a huddled and defenseless body, but of a balanced, prosperous and confident body: the body re-formed." I don't really know if that helps my phobia, but I'll try to remind myself of it when I view sculpture of, in my opinion, a provocative nature.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Ballet Under the Stars
On Friday the tenth I went to see the Ballet Under the Stars with my mom and cousin. The drive to Murray was a little long, but I think the experience was well worth it. I had never really seen a ballet except for on television, so I wasn't really quite sure what to expect. I've always equated it with the upper crust and fancy dresses in a beautifully constructed theatre.
On with the description. The genre and 'object' were ballet and dance. I think that it really represents the hard work of each of the performers. The ballet wasn't one great ballet like The Nutcracker, or Cinderella, but a bunch of little performances or a montage. Actually, one of my favorite dances was called the carnival scene for "The Red Shoes," so I think that I would really enjoy a full ballet. I kind of reminded me of the Romeo and Juliet they did on So You Think You Can Dance. Not in story, but in the way the different participants had to act out there roles, without saying anything, but merely with there feet. That is one of the limitations of dance. There really isn't anyway the dancers can communicate other than with their body language and facial expressions, which really are quite loquacious as is stated in The Little Mermaid and proved in Lie to Me. There are many types of medium in dance. One is the dancer himself. The human body can be made to do amazing things, which is quite evident in ballet. I have to admit that I could never do a lot of the things the dancers did. It requires a great deal of flexibility and coordination, as well as a good memory. When I took dance as a little kid I had to look at the other dancers to know what step was next in our dances, even when we got to preforming time. Some other mediums are the costumes, sets and make-up. It's a little weird, but I decided that the best hairstyle for male ballerinas is floppy hair, like that of Demetri on Anastasia. Okay, that's a lot a bit weird, but it all plays into the general performance. Another thing that pretty much confuses me is the ballet shoe. At times in the ballet yesterday I thought their shoes would just fall right off. It's sort of like wearing flippers, but with a big block of would instead of thin plastic sticking straight out of the toe. the thin ribbon just doesn't seem like it should be able to hold the shoe on. Sometimes the tapping of the wood on the stage was a little distracting, but it was really pretty amazing that the dancers were so quiet generally. The costumes for ballerinas really enhance the art as well. Judging by the definitions in their calves and backs, I think that some of the lady ballerinas would have an easier time lifting their make counterparts than they did lifting them.
I think that one of the most important parts of ballet is line. At some parts they have to be so fluid, while others it is imperative that they be straight. The dancers have to have incredible posture, but they also have to be able to bend backwards and forwards to great degree. I'm not an expert on ballet, but I think that sometimes some of the dancers could have extended a little bit more so that their movements didn't seem halted too soon. Another really important part is space. They did a really good job of using all of the space available to them on the stage. During solos they leaped and twirled across even at times stepping over the mat they had set out. They were very organized when their was a group dancing and their formations were generally symmetrical so that the eye wasn't drawn to any one dancer, unless she was in the center and doing different sorts of movements than the others were.
As far as interpretation, there were so many dances that I'm not going to interpret each of them, but instead I will choose my favorite. The set on the stage was like a carnival with booths and balloons. There were two main characters and everybody wore masks. I interpreted the whole dance as a chance meeting between a commoner and royalty that was hesitant at first, but ended in love which at the very end was lost. The reason it was called The Red Shoes is that the common girl was given the shoes by the royal gent and they made her dance better. She was at first embarrassed to dance but slowly became more comfortable. This particular dance was manic. I think the meaning was made known at first by the facial expressions, and then by the body motions because masks were donned.
It was a very interesting night. I think that the performers were trying to educate the people there and expose them to culture. They did a really good job of that and there were quite a few people in attendance. It was unified by the fact that each of the dances were done in the ballet genre, but there was variety among the performers and the separate performances. It stories were clear, but the movements the dancers used to express them were quite complex. I would definitely be interested in attending another ballet.
On with the description. The genre and 'object' were ballet and dance. I think that it really represents the hard work of each of the performers. The ballet wasn't one great ballet like The Nutcracker, or Cinderella, but a bunch of little performances or a montage. Actually, one of my favorite dances was called the carnival scene for "The Red Shoes," so I think that I would really enjoy a full ballet. I kind of reminded me of the Romeo and Juliet they did on So You Think You Can Dance. Not in story, but in the way the different participants had to act out there roles, without saying anything, but merely with there feet. That is one of the limitations of dance. There really isn't anyway the dancers can communicate other than with their body language and facial expressions, which really are quite loquacious as is stated in The Little Mermaid and proved in Lie to Me. There are many types of medium in dance. One is the dancer himself. The human body can be made to do amazing things, which is quite evident in ballet. I have to admit that I could never do a lot of the things the dancers did. It requires a great deal of flexibility and coordination, as well as a good memory. When I took dance as a little kid I had to look at the other dancers to know what step was next in our dances, even when we got to preforming time. Some other mediums are the costumes, sets and make-up. It's a little weird, but I decided that the best hairstyle for male ballerinas is floppy hair, like that of Demetri on Anastasia. Okay, that's a lot a bit weird, but it all plays into the general performance. Another thing that pretty much confuses me is the ballet shoe. At times in the ballet yesterday I thought their shoes would just fall right off. It's sort of like wearing flippers, but with a big block of would instead of thin plastic sticking straight out of the toe. the thin ribbon just doesn't seem like it should be able to hold the shoe on. Sometimes the tapping of the wood on the stage was a little distracting, but it was really pretty amazing that the dancers were so quiet generally. The costumes for ballerinas really enhance the art as well. Judging by the definitions in their calves and backs, I think that some of the lady ballerinas would have an easier time lifting their make counterparts than they did lifting them.
I think that one of the most important parts of ballet is line. At some parts they have to be so fluid, while others it is imperative that they be straight. The dancers have to have incredible posture, but they also have to be able to bend backwards and forwards to great degree. I'm not an expert on ballet, but I think that sometimes some of the dancers could have extended a little bit more so that their movements didn't seem halted too soon. Another really important part is space. They did a really good job of using all of the space available to them on the stage. During solos they leaped and twirled across even at times stepping over the mat they had set out. They were very organized when their was a group dancing and their formations were generally symmetrical so that the eye wasn't drawn to any one dancer, unless she was in the center and doing different sorts of movements than the others were.
As far as interpretation, there were so many dances that I'm not going to interpret each of them, but instead I will choose my favorite. The set on the stage was like a carnival with booths and balloons. There were two main characters and everybody wore masks. I interpreted the whole dance as a chance meeting between a commoner and royalty that was hesitant at first, but ended in love which at the very end was lost. The reason it was called The Red Shoes is that the common girl was given the shoes by the royal gent and they made her dance better. She was at first embarrassed to dance but slowly became more comfortable. This particular dance was manic. I think the meaning was made known at first by the facial expressions, and then by the body motions because masks were donned.
It was a very interesting night. I think that the performers were trying to educate the people there and expose them to culture. They did a really good job of that and there were quite a few people in attendance. It was unified by the fact that each of the dances were done in the ballet genre, but there was variety among the performers and the separate performances. It stories were clear, but the movements the dancers used to express them were quite complex. I would definitely be interested in attending another ballet.
Class Week 3
We talked about the book From Bauhaus to our House in class the other day, so probably some of this post will sound similar to my reading post this week, but only the first part. We talked about the points Tom Wolfe made in his book and about specific architects. Really, I have to think that the architects that decided they didn't want to be the same as those who committed themselves to the international style made a greater impression. I the book there were a few people mentioned who were a part of the "compound," but they were only mentioned briefly. People like Morris Lapidus and John Portman almost got an entire page. So even though they were sneered at, and given "the look," they were remembered. I think one of the greatest problems with the box, besides the fact that it had a flat roof and flat siding and was thus more exposed to the elements, was that it allowed the peoples of America to become less creative. There wasn't anyone carving out the stone ornamentation, because there wasn't any. It makes the buildings of America less inspiring, less bespeaking of the American dream. They are quite impressive in their own right, but not quite on the same level of countries who have architecture dating back hundreds of years.
Another part of the lesson I really liked was learning about the visual arts. I have to admit that I sort of skimmed a little through the section on visual arts in the book and so I didn't remember all of the interesting effects things like color have on a piece of work. It was really neat to see the pictures of pure color and to hear what they made people think about, whether they were thinking something along the same lines as I was, or something totally different that made me take a second glance. I remember one in particular that honestly made me feel a little bit nauseated. It was red green and blue. They were very nice colors, in fact two of them are my favorite, but somehow the combination made me feel slightly uncomfortable. Also, the painting by Van Gogh was interesting to look at. It was hard for me to think merely about the painting and the effect it had on me without thinking about the troubled life of the artist. While the colors were vivid, a word I would normally use to describe something full of life and somehow happy, they instead had the reverse effect. The yellow was somewhat sickly and the contrast between the red and the green again made me uncomfortable. They colors were also pretty dark. Normally I actually quite like the colors green, red and yellow together, but these were calculated to have an almost negative connotation. Colors really do have a lot of power.
Another part of the lesson I really liked was learning about the visual arts. I have to admit that I sort of skimmed a little through the section on visual arts in the book and so I didn't remember all of the interesting effects things like color have on a piece of work. It was really neat to see the pictures of pure color and to hear what they made people think about, whether they were thinking something along the same lines as I was, or something totally different that made me take a second glance. I remember one in particular that honestly made me feel a little bit nauseated. It was red green and blue. They were very nice colors, in fact two of them are my favorite, but somehow the combination made me feel slightly uncomfortable. Also, the painting by Van Gogh was interesting to look at. It was hard for me to think merely about the painting and the effect it had on me without thinking about the troubled life of the artist. While the colors were vivid, a word I would normally use to describe something full of life and somehow happy, they instead had the reverse effect. The yellow was somewhat sickly and the contrast between the red and the green again made me uncomfortable. They colors were also pretty dark. Normally I actually quite like the colors green, red and yellow together, but these were calculated to have an almost negative connotation. Colors really do have a lot of power.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Reading Week 3
I thought that from Bauhaus to our House was a really interesting book. I have to admit it was kind of hard for me to tell if Tom Wolfe was for, or against the different practices of modern architecture. I realize that a good portion of the book was spent in mocking different things at it, but I'm not sure if he preferred an particular mode or if he just thought them all ridiculous. Was he a white fan, or an International style fan? Admittedly his approving of either of those would be rather difficult to fathom given the corrosive way he wrote about them. The quotes he has from Robert Stern are none too flattering, though they are some of my favorite lines from the book. "He said Hejduk was doing the only thing his designs were good for: 'paper architecture.'" (page 97) Another good line was about Eisenman, "his theorizing gave Stern 'a headache,' and his houses were a 'superfluity of walls, beams and columns' that added up not to 'deep structure' but to claustrophobia.'" Jaquelin Robertson also has an awsome quote about the work of Graves. "His houses were crawling inside and out with a sort of nasty modern ivy in the way of railings, metal trellises, unexplained pipes, exposed beams, inexplicable and obtuse tubes - most to no apparent real of architechtural purpose."
Although I'm pretty sure I didn't understand all of the sarcasm and humor in the book, I thought it was really well written. I can see how such a book could be incredibly dull, but From Bauhaus to our House really wasn't. I very much agree with a few of the general ideas of the book. Namely that many of our building are too similar. They aren't unique. In older regions, such as Europe, and even back east there are buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful. I would love an opportunity to go and just walk around and look at the old plantations (even though if looked at in context many of them were built from the profits of slavery) of the south or the huge churches in Germany or England. There are some really beautiful buildings in Utah, too, but I guess I've just always thought that somewhere like Germany was just wall to wall elegant architecture. I'm glad that the world of architecture has entered a new stage, where it isn't International and sterile.
Although I'm pretty sure I didn't understand all of the sarcasm and humor in the book, I thought it was really well written. I can see how such a book could be incredibly dull, but From Bauhaus to our House really wasn't. I very much agree with a few of the general ideas of the book. Namely that many of our building are too similar. They aren't unique. In older regions, such as Europe, and even back east there are buildings that are breathtakingly beautiful. I would love an opportunity to go and just walk around and look at the old plantations (even though if looked at in context many of them were built from the profits of slavery) of the south or the huge churches in Germany or England. There are some really beautiful buildings in Utah, too, but I guess I've just always thought that somewhere like Germany was just wall to wall elegant architecture. I'm glad that the world of architecture has entered a new stage, where it isn't International and sterile.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
4th of July Parade
I really don't remember the exact order of parade floats or bands or anything, and I didn't bring a notebook with me to catalog them because that definitely would have detracted from a community experience for me. So, what I write isn't going to be an exact synopsis but rather an account of the things I thought were the most memberable. I'll make it a point to mention here that my family has been attending the Provo Freedom Festival 4th of July Parade for as long as I can remember and will probably keep attending for quite some time. I really look forward to it, so my opinion might be a little skewed. Probably some people find parades quite boring, but I like them even when they don't throw the candy far enough for the people in the back to receive any of the bounty.
The conditions of the parade were fairly good, other than the fact that it ironically rained. Actually, from my perspective that was not really a bad thing at all because is my favorite kind of weather and it served to reduce the temperature partially. I can't imagine the actual participants were all that thrilled by the occurrence though. My family always has a most comfortable viewing point of the parade; not too far from the start so that we can beat the rush of traffic when the parade ends. We put up sheets on the fence to the east of us so that we have shade and then set our chairs against said fence. The only drawback of our positioning is that there happens to be a sidewalk right in front of it. People are constantly walking past and blocking our view, but then again nothing moves too fast in a parade, so we have plenty of chances to view the "performers." Another problem with our spot this year was that some people stood right in front of us so we ended up standing most of the parade in spite of the fact that we had perfectly good chairs available to sit in.
One of the best parts for me was being at the event with my family. I went to Singin' in the Rain by myself, so the parade had a better atmosphere in that regard. My little brother plays the trumpet in the Pleasant Grove High School marching band and marched in the very front row. This is his freshman year and the first parade I've seen him in, so that was a really neat part of the experience. I was able to cheer for the BYU parade entries even louder this year and was told "Hey Mary, you go to school there now," about five times. It really was different than when I was just a BYU hopeful.
I've always loved to watch the horse entries, including such things as the Clydesdales, the hearse, and the mounties, or whatever the officers that ride the horses are called. The floats that carry the royalty are pretty nifty as well, and I have to wonder if coming up with a creative float theme was part of the contest and if not, who did come up with them? I like the George Q. cannon and the revolutionary and other war-dressed people who remind me of the many different conflicts that have been passed through to make this country free. Of course, one of the crowd favorites was the marching of the missionaries. Not only is it unique but it is really inspiring. It was a most excellent parade.
The conditions of the parade were fairly good, other than the fact that it ironically rained. Actually, from my perspective that was not really a bad thing at all because is my favorite kind of weather and it served to reduce the temperature partially. I can't imagine the actual participants were all that thrilled by the occurrence though. My family always has a most comfortable viewing point of the parade; not too far from the start so that we can beat the rush of traffic when the parade ends. We put up sheets on the fence to the east of us so that we have shade and then set our chairs against said fence. The only drawback of our positioning is that there happens to be a sidewalk right in front of it. People are constantly walking past and blocking our view, but then again nothing moves too fast in a parade, so we have plenty of chances to view the "performers." Another problem with our spot this year was that some people stood right in front of us so we ended up standing most of the parade in spite of the fact that we had perfectly good chairs available to sit in.
One of the best parts for me was being at the event with my family. I went to Singin' in the Rain by myself, so the parade had a better atmosphere in that regard. My little brother plays the trumpet in the Pleasant Grove High School marching band and marched in the very front row. This is his freshman year and the first parade I've seen him in, so that was a really neat part of the experience. I was able to cheer for the BYU parade entries even louder this year and was told "Hey Mary, you go to school there now," about five times. It really was different than when I was just a BYU hopeful.
I've always loved to watch the horse entries, including such things as the Clydesdales, the hearse, and the mounties, or whatever the officers that ride the horses are called. The floats that carry the royalty are pretty nifty as well, and I have to wonder if coming up with a creative float theme was part of the contest and if not, who did come up with them? I like the George Q. cannon and the revolutionary and other war-dressed people who remind me of the many different conflicts that have been passed through to make this country free. Of course, one of the crowd favorites was the marching of the missionaries. Not only is it unique but it is really inspiring. It was a most excellent parade.
Reading Week 2
I had a pretty hard time understanding the Aesthetics and Criticism readings, so I guess I can't write intelligently about them, so I won't even attempt it. I really did enjoy reading chapters 14 and 17 however. I learned, or rather I read about a lot of interesting things that I had never heard of. When we talked about architecture in class, I realized that I need to read things more carefully even, because there were many terms I didn't remember.
I found the architecture chapter particularly fascinating. Whenever my family goes places now, and I'm not driving so I can look at different houses, start spouting off different architectural terms; that's Victorian eclectic, or those are Doric columns. What really surprises me is that my mom knows all of the stuff as well. When I asked her if she knew who painted certain pictures from chapter 14 she knew the answers.
I very much liked the fact that there were pictures of what the book was referring to. I guess I had always thought that the Pantheon looked like the Coliseum, but now that seems completely ridiculous to me, as they are such different structures. Along with the pictures, the diagrams helped me to visualize the general floor plans for the specific architectural eras. It seems like it will be hard for me to tell what time period a specific structure is from unless I have a birds-eye view of it as reference.
I too am curious as to how people such as the Egyptians built such marvelous structures as the pyramids with comparatively primitive resources. I have never been to the pyramids or seen the Parthenon, but just hearing about how intricately designed they are makes me want to go. It's just proof that while machinery helps quite a bit, and speeds the process, it isn't essential to create beauty.
I found the architecture chapter particularly fascinating. Whenever my family goes places now, and I'm not driving so I can look at different houses, start spouting off different architectural terms; that's Victorian eclectic, or those are Doric columns. What really surprises me is that my mom knows all of the stuff as well. When I asked her if she knew who painted certain pictures from chapter 14 she knew the answers.
I very much liked the fact that there were pictures of what the book was referring to. I guess I had always thought that the Pantheon looked like the Coliseum, but now that seems completely ridiculous to me, as they are such different structures. Along with the pictures, the diagrams helped me to visualize the general floor plans for the specific architectural eras. It seems like it will be hard for me to tell what time period a specific structure is from unless I have a birds-eye view of it as reference.
I too am curious as to how people such as the Egyptians built such marvelous structures as the pyramids with comparatively primitive resources. I have never been to the pyramids or seen the Parthenon, but just hearing about how intricately designed they are makes me want to go. It's just proof that while machinery helps quite a bit, and speeds the process, it isn't essential to create beauty.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Class Discussion on the 29th
I read the articles for class on the 29th and I have to admit that I didn't understand them completely. Our class discussion went a long way to clarifying the ideas of beauty, aesthetics and criticism for me. I have never really thought too hard about the art I see in museums. I think that I have been operating on a "beauty for beauty's sake" basis. Of course, my connection with the gospel helped me to appreciate religious works of art more fully, but other than that I have found it easier to simply look at a peice of art and enjoy its color or its content without real thought. Sometimes I read the plaques beside the art, but I'm not sure whether they come from the critic or the artist, and are thus less useful. I do think that beauty is a very important part of the world, because without it, everything would be more sterile. As we looked at the pictures of the churches in class and the immense detail each of them possessed I thought, 'If beauty weren't important, there is no way people would spend this much time on things. We must be innately driven to beautify the world around us.' I could really see from the two pictures of the church interiors that they played different roles in the communion with God of the saints attending them. Though I thought each of them were exquisitely beautiful, the more enclosed one brought to my mind secret passages while the white open one looked like it could have been the set for the wedding scene in the Sound of Music.
Another part of the lesson that helped to change my perspective was about critics. I've always thought of them as high-falutin' posh folks who loved to put down other people's work. I never thought of the fact that their job is actually quite hard and carries a lot of responsibility. Not all works of art can be super, or none of them would be - as paraphrased from the movie The Incredibles. At the same time, not everything can be bad. Critics have to give their opinions without allowing personal prejudices to color them. They have a job of unifying different artworks, of giving them a common bond just through the fact that they have viewed them and expressed judgement. Another purpose of the critic is to make artists think twice before they casually create something. Artists know that someone qualified is going to view their art and that ups the ante. Critics force art to keep evolving and become better. I don't know if I could be a critic because I would have a hard time not saying everything is good, even if it wasn't, if merely to spare the artist's feelings. I don't know much about how to criticise art, but I am looking foreward to learning.
Another part of the lesson that helped to change my perspective was about critics. I've always thought of them as high-falutin' posh folks who loved to put down other people's work. I never thought of the fact that their job is actually quite hard and carries a lot of responsibility. Not all works of art can be super, or none of them would be - as paraphrased from the movie The Incredibles. At the same time, not everything can be bad. Critics have to give their opinions without allowing personal prejudices to color them. They have a job of unifying different artworks, of giving them a common bond just through the fact that they have viewed them and expressed judgement. Another purpose of the critic is to make artists think twice before they casually create something. Artists know that someone qualified is going to view their art and that ups the ante. Critics force art to keep evolving and become better. I don't know if I could be a critic because I would have a hard time not saying everything is good, even if it wasn't, if merely to spare the artist's feelings. I don't know much about how to criticise art, but I am looking foreward to learning.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Cultural Events
This is a very tentative list of events I hope to attend
Week 1
Play: Singin' in the Rain @ Hale Center Theater
Week 2
Community: America's Freedom Festival Patriotic Service, Provo Gallery Stroll, Balloons
Week 3
Dance: July 10-11 Ballet Under the Stars
Week 4
Music: Deer Valley Music Fest Utah Symphony
Week 5
Screening: Orem Public Library
Week 6
Exhibition: BYU Museum of Art
Week 7
Play: If Singin' in the Rain doesn't work
Week 8
Concert in the park
Week 1
Play: Singin' in the Rain @ Hale Center Theater
Week 2
Community: America's Freedom Festival Patriotic Service, Provo Gallery Stroll, Balloons
Week 3
Dance: July 10-11 Ballet Under the Stars
Week 4
Music: Deer Valley Music Fest Utah Symphony
Week 5
Screening: Orem Public Library
Week 6
Exhibition: BYU Museum of Art
Week 7
Play: If Singin' in the Rain doesn't work
Week 8
Concert in the park
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Reading
Our readings this week really helped to wet my appetite for the humanities, especially the message about the The Gospel Vision of the Arts. As this is my first semester at BYU it is still amazing and wonderful to me that the professors are allowed to combine the churches beliefs in their academic learning programs. One of my favorite sentences was, "What could be the result if discovery were made of equal talent in men who were clean and free from the vices, and thus entitled to revelations?" Something about it just thrilled me, maybe it was the idea of just what could be accomplished. Thinking of it is beyond my grasp because it's hard to imagine anything better than the best we've been exposed to. It's hard to know what better is, what kind of genre will the musician who is better than Bach write? What kind of painting will an even better painting be? Would I be able to tell the best violinist from the best already existing? President Kimball's message kind of makes me feel guilty for not striving to become the best. For not deciding that I need to be better than ordinary or good because I, along with other latter-day saints have the potential to become the best through inspiration. It's already hard to walk the line between pride and humility, and being the best at something would indeed be a great challenge in that regard. I like that the first presidency took the time to write a message to the saints, encouraging them to build themselves in all areas, not just the spiritual, but the physical parts of man's potential as well. I don't feel that I am meant to become really great at something, but no one ever will if everyone feels that way. I hope to someday hear Paginini's better, or read a play by Shakespeare's better.
Singing in the Rain
The cultural event I decided to go to this week was the play at Hale Center Theatre in Orem called Singing in the Rain. I fairly certain almost everyone has seen this play before, but just to keep all the bases covered I'll give a short summary of the play, which is one of my favorites. It begins with an announcer gushing into her microphone about the actor and actress and their magnificent abilities as the crowd waits excitedly for the Lamont and Lockwood acting team to arrive on the red carpet. They do a good job of acting, and no one can guess that the actor, Don Lockwood, of the famous duo actually has no love for his companion. She, being a somewhat dumb blond can't tell either, and believes that they two will be married in short order. As the play goes on, Don falls in love with a girl named Cathy Seldon, the only girl who didn't fall at his feet since he was four. Lena dislikes Cathy strongly because Cathy hit her in the face with a pie that was actually meant for Don. The play is set right on the brink of talkies. Warner Brothers Studios comes out with the musical, The Jazz Singer, and the studio that Lamont and Lockwood work for, Monumental Pictures, has to come up with something to top it. As talking in film is a relatively new concept they have all sorts of trouble getting started and their biggest problem is Lena. She has a terrible voice and almost no common sense so the studio sneakily has Cathy sing for her becuase she has an amazing voice. In the end the show is a hit and Lena, who tries to ruin Cathy's career gets her just desserts. I'm not really comfortable with criticizing the script or the play itself, just becuase I love it and would continue to watch again and again even if someone with authority said it wasn't that good.
I've seen the movie with Gene Kelly and Debbie Renolds dozens of times, so my expectations were pretty high. I wasn't disappointed. They did a fantastic job of improvising in parts that could have been a flop and they even added some hilarious parts that weren't in the movie. I was almost late, I was by myself, and I had the threat of having to write about my experience hanging over my head, so I was a little bit stressed when I went into the theater, but the atmosphere was really calming. I had an excellent view because Hale Center Theatre is set up in a circle stage and is small enough that there are no bad views. The people that helped everyone to sit down were very accomadating.
One of the things that impressed me the most about this production was the way the audience was included in it. "Of course what makes it better than a movie is that interaction with the audience" is a direct quote from someone sitting near me and I completely agree with him. The audience was very involved. We acted as the applause when the stars were walking down the read carpet or when black and white clips were shown as if we with the ones at the movie preview. The most exciting part was when Don Lockwood did his Singing in the Rain. In the movie he splashes all over the streets dancing and singing with his umbrella used for anything but the purpose of keeping him dry. They actually had rain coming from the ceiling in the theatre and on the tickets it warned that the first rows would get wet. All of the people in those rows were given ponchos, but I doubt that was enough. The sprinklers didn't get them wet, and I'm sure they were starting to relax when Don started kicking water all over them and spinning his soaked umbrella at them. It was no longer just the front row who was getting wet, but all the way to the forth or fifth rows. I was so funny to see the actor totally trying to soak people while still remaining in character.
Another amazing part was Cathy Seldon's singing voice. She really did a great job. Lena Lamont also attempted to sing. This wasn't a song I was familiar with because it doesn't occur in the movie, but it was very funny to see her try to sing. The actress did a very good job of missing the notes and keeping up her very disharmonious voice. The dancing was also pretty good. Anyone who knows who Gene Kelly was would know it would be impossible to be up to his standards, but they did a good job.
The only thing I was a little disappointed with was some of the singing. I can't really criticize because I don't know very much about singing, but it just wasn't as good as I hoped it would be but on the whole I was very happy to have attended.
I've seen the movie with Gene Kelly and Debbie Renolds dozens of times, so my expectations were pretty high. I wasn't disappointed. They did a fantastic job of improvising in parts that could have been a flop and they even added some hilarious parts that weren't in the movie. I was almost late, I was by myself, and I had the threat of having to write about my experience hanging over my head, so I was a little bit stressed when I went into the theater, but the atmosphere was really calming. I had an excellent view because Hale Center Theatre is set up in a circle stage and is small enough that there are no bad views. The people that helped everyone to sit down were very accomadating.
One of the things that impressed me the most about this production was the way the audience was included in it. "Of course what makes it better than a movie is that interaction with the audience" is a direct quote from someone sitting near me and I completely agree with him. The audience was very involved. We acted as the applause when the stars were walking down the read carpet or when black and white clips were shown as if we with the ones at the movie preview. The most exciting part was when Don Lockwood did his Singing in the Rain. In the movie he splashes all over the streets dancing and singing with his umbrella used for anything but the purpose of keeping him dry. They actually had rain coming from the ceiling in the theatre and on the tickets it warned that the first rows would get wet. All of the people in those rows were given ponchos, but I doubt that was enough. The sprinklers didn't get them wet, and I'm sure they were starting to relax when Don started kicking water all over them and spinning his soaked umbrella at them. It was no longer just the front row who was getting wet, but all the way to the forth or fifth rows. I was so funny to see the actor totally trying to soak people while still remaining in character.
Another amazing part was Cathy Seldon's singing voice. She really did a great job. Lena Lamont also attempted to sing. This wasn't a song I was familiar with because it doesn't occur in the movie, but it was very funny to see her try to sing. The actress did a very good job of missing the notes and keeping up her very disharmonious voice. The dancing was also pretty good. Anyone who knows who Gene Kelly was would know it would be impossible to be up to his standards, but they did a good job.
The only thing I was a little disappointed with was some of the singing. I can't really criticize because I don't know very much about singing, but it just wasn't as good as I hoped it would be but on the whole I was very happy to have attended.
Class
So far I have really enjoyed humanities. I love history and art, so I think that the subject matter is fasinating. I especially liked the the discussion the class had about high and low end art. It was really thought provoking for me, and the comments other students made were really ensightful and helped me to look at art in a different way. I have to confess that I am among the group of people that thinks because something is an antique it is inherently better than anything new. If it has been kept by the human race for so long it must be fantastic. It may be due to the fact that I've been indocterinated into prefering the older art, but the paintings I've seen that were produced in earlier history are much more appealing to me than many of the "new" ones. I guess I just have a more classical than contempory taste.
We talked about how the most important art can come from pop-culture. I really have to wonder what has caused the changes from what people created then and what they create now. I mean, what caused the change in the public's acceptance of certain styles of art as good. Are the tastes of modern people really so different than the tastes of the those that lived so many years ago; is there some sort of difference in our make-up that allows us to embrace a more, in my opion, flamboyant style than they did? Maybe the advances in science and social liberation have allowed for this. Science has exposed us to colorful new worlds and ideas and it seems that as society has become less stuffy, the art, dancing, architecture and music have also become more casual.
Though I have a definite preference between old and new at this point in the semester, I'm excited to learn more about different types of humanity's creations. I agree that the words high and low are maybe not the best to words that can be used to catagorize art and I'm interested in learning how to decipher what is trully good.
We talked about how the most important art can come from pop-culture. I really have to wonder what has caused the changes from what people created then and what they create now. I mean, what caused the change in the public's acceptance of certain styles of art as good. Are the tastes of modern people really so different than the tastes of the those that lived so many years ago; is there some sort of difference in our make-up that allows us to embrace a more, in my opion, flamboyant style than they did? Maybe the advances in science and social liberation have allowed for this. Science has exposed us to colorful new worlds and ideas and it seems that as society has become less stuffy, the art, dancing, architecture and music have also become more casual.
Though I have a definite preference between old and new at this point in the semester, I'm excited to learn more about different types of humanity's creations. I agree that the words high and low are maybe not the best to words that can be used to catagorize art and I'm interested in learning how to decipher what is trully good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
