bagger- second viewing

just a reaction to class today: one of the things i was paying close attention to was the various cuts in the sequence; that is, the images that play over the "supernatural" monologue of Bagger about the authentic swing. one particular shot troubles me: the sun seems to make an appearance. right after the mysterious Bagger silent mouth (a hot topic in class), there is a shot of the clouds moving quickly in front of the moon (and it looks like the sun). granted the boys are on the golf course at night, what does this shot mean? it is clearly contextually significant simply because it is so foreign to the surroundings we've already taken in.

when Bagger goes out of sync, all of a sudden the breakdown of the conventions of the scene begins. the moon appears, perhaps signifying some great revelation to be had from the moment. the monologue, or it's construction, suggests that in order to understand the scene, we need not focus on what Bagger is saying. instead we should focus the visual and the sound of his voice, blending and driving towards the moment where he places the ball down. the sinking of the shot and the sound of the ball in the cup then brings the viewer back down to reality, in a beautiful moment of tension, chaos, and release. but why? what was the intention of the scene?

the obvious answer was that the writers wanted to create a supernatural feeling, and establish Bagger as having some mystical, almost prophetic quality. but what if intention doesn't matter? what if the quick clouds were just something the cinematographer thought was cool, and on a whim decided to add to the shot? here we are waxing about the beauty of the scene, when the conclusions we draw may be totally our own, and insignificant to the average viewer or the intention of the screenwriter? or maybe we are really onto something. who knows.

a night at the opera

so i spent my presidents day at the opera with my dad and sister. it was really an amazing experience, the met is such an incredible hall, and the ensemble is always really dynamite. the sets were unbelievable, as well as the musicianship displayed by the orchestra. it was truly a great experience. anyway, without further ego-stroking, here is my formal analysis of the performance.

PERFORMANCE: “Otello” at the Metropolitan Opera House, February 18th, 2008

Otello is an excellent opera, well written, with a beautiful score and some of the best character development in all of the genre. Several progressive musical techniques, coupled with a strong libretto and depth of characters works strongly and effectively. The players of the Met deliver, of course, and capture the essence of each of the strong elements of Verdi’s classic opera.

The action begins immediately, without the use of an overture to establish and sort of preconception of the themes to come. This is a bold move, but effective, because it allows themes to develop with the action they correspond to in the opera. The orchestra uses a flurry of dynamics and color, plus a minor modality, to effectively represent the storm in the beginning of the opera as Otello approaches in his ship. This kind of orchestral dynamic range is a recurring element of the opera, with the orchestra really wailing on the angrier moments of Otello. The deceptions and pessimism of Iago receive quick, short, successive minor chord hits. Desdemona often receives a fluttering bright medley in the beginning, but quickly develops into a minor, darker modality of themes towards the end. Of course, the infamous ending is the best example of the Orchestra’s dynamic range. After Otello’s death, the Orchestra gets very quiet, leaving only a timpani roll and a few choice instruments to represent the slow, quiet passing of the two major characters (Otello and Desdemona). There are no major hits, and no loud, grand finishes. There is simply a soft fade out.

It is also important to mention that Verdi breaks conventions regarding the structure of recitative and aria, instead opting for a style where it is more ambiguous where one starts and the other stops. More attention is focused on the plot, which successfully develops its characters. This especially applies to Iago and Otello, who are full developed through the action, both to tragic ends.

META-CRITIQUE

It was extremely difficult to stay on a formal level, which I’m not even sure I successfully did, because there is SO MUCH to talk about beyond the mere musical motifs and character development. The libretto remains faithful to Shakespeare’s classic, minus the omission of Act I for smoother continuity, which is huge when talking about how well characters are developed (obviously due to Shakespeare, NOT to the librettist). Then again, the music may serve to further characterize as well, but I did not explore the sound-in-time or how certain themes evoke certain sympathetic emotions.

Another huge oversight is as follows: the quality of the performance rests heavily on the clout of the players, which I could not discuss in my analysis. I went in thinking that the tenor singing Otello was going to be sub-par (I had heard from my Dad, according to reviews, he was nothing special, at least as far as the Met was concerned). Also, I am a huge Renée Fleming fan, and to see her in one of Opera’s most demanding and timeless roles was such a treat, she must have shone incredibly bright regardless of the quality of the arias she sang. I wanted to talk about her and the connotations she brings with her presence, and her fan base, and the influence of other roles I’ve seen her play.

I could not talk about the history of the Opera, its distinguished former cast members, or the conditions in which it was written, all of which matter. Historically speaking, a comparison to the structure of Wagner opera’s could have shed some light on the effectiveness of breaking down structure to character development. A comparison to Verdi’s earlier operas as well could have shown how Otello truly is one of his most mature operas, and why. Instead, many of these possibly elaborations are left blank, and the formal analysis stands weakly on its own. To be fair everything I said has purpose and works, but it seems to be a little flat when compared to all of the possible roads of exploration regarding the work.

for anyone who missed this reference today in class:

Gebauer and Wulf, in their essay, attempt to break down the essential building blocks of the concept known as "mimesis." They assume, probably for good reason, that the reader already is familiar with the term (which I was not). So I looked it up on Dictionary.com. mimesis, according to The American Heritage Dictionary is "The imitation or representation of aspects of the sensible world, especially human actions, in literature and art." It also concerns Rhetoric, another important concept of the ancient greeks; the power of argument, and the ability to imitate another's argument (and his persona) through his words. mimesis is then understood to be a form of heightened imitation, not to be confused with the sincerest and most artistic form of flattery; this is an attempt at recreating the essence of something else through poetry, music, visual art, and the written word.

The essay begins by establishing the complexity of the term, and summing it up in three pre-platonic dimensions: "imitation," "representation," and "expression." These are the buzzwords for the essay. Most of the ideas revolve around extrapolating these three words and expanding their meaning with regards to the overarching meaning of "mimesis." Plato's mimesis also included ideas like "emulation" and "transformation." Transformation is key here because it is an active word; unlike it's preceding descriptors, it refers to mimesis as something dynamic. It's more than a mirror, it's a doorway that the artist opens, and one must step through. To Plato, it's the production of a world of appearances, of image. The essay then explains Aristotle's expansion of this, including detailed work on literary mimesis.

Next the essay moves to the origins of the concept, both etymologically and conceptually, based on the work of Koller, Else, and Goran. It is important to note the linguistic root of the word, mimos, which is used to derive other words which mean "imitation," "representation," and "portrayal." According to Koller the Greeks, especially Plato, restricted the meaning of the word and eventually "falsified" it. He instead concludes it must have derived from music and dance, not simply the aesthetic. The essay then goes on to further explore the many derivations and origins of the word throughout history, but mostly concerning it's use around the fifth century, and of course, during Plato's time.

The third section of the essay strictly concerns Plato's point of view, regarding mimesis as imitation, illusion, and image. It describes mimesis in it's entirety before the work of Plato; limited to three definitions:

1. mimesis as imitation of a concrete action.

2. mimesis as imitation or emulation.

3. mimesis as a metaphor.

The conflict between writers and philosophers also comes into play, especially concerning mimesis of the "noble and perfect life," to which philosophers claim the ability, while simultaneously downplaying such an act. The essay then expands on Plato's writings with some of his later work, including the relationship between mimesis and poetry, mimesis and education, and education and poetry. Apparently poetry once played an important role in education (again, I did not realize this). The essay talks of the criteria necessary for poetry to be useful in education, applying this limitation to music as well (all Plato's ideas on the matter, that is). Then Plato's definition of mimesis, according to The Republic, is stated in twelve bullets, expanding on the original three while creating new rules for it's use.

Finally, the essay turns to more radical ideas concerning mimesis, including some more modernist theories. It discusses how Plato's point of view is an ontological one, and that artistic representation can sometimes be the representation of something phenomenal, thereby bringing artistic creation closer to God than, say, a craftsmen. The idea of images as appearance is also explored, with an example of the philosophy of real existence from The Sophist. The essay plays with the idea of mimesis ultimately capturing an essence, and finally summarizes Plato's views as discussed throughout the essay.

REACTION
First off, the concept of mimesis was totally foreign to me before this essay, and even though I read it several times, I'm still not sure I get it completely. It seems to me that mimesis is, simply, the artistic imitation of something, whether its human emotion, or simply an aesthetic. I couldn't figure out if it needs to be real, but it certainly does not have to be tangible. In playing with the idea I got more confused. One line left me pondering: "Neither writing nor reading is conceivable without mimesis." This comes right after the statement that a cultures collective memory must be preserved through writing. Now this writing has no artistic merit, it's simply a record of what transpired at a certain time. History. Does this mean that mimesis is anything that represents something? Is mimesis the act of taking anything and translating it into something else?
This would mean that a blog is mimesis. One writes some words, publishes it on the internet, and suddenly one has a perfect representation of their thoughts and feelings transfered into something with the ability to share. I think sharing is an important part of mimesis as well, you need to have two parties involved to truly achieve the full act of mimesis. If I write a poem, attempting to explain how I feel on a summer day, and no one reads it, its not quite mimesis yet, is it? Is it the act, or the confirmation of successful image, that culminates mimesis?
I was also left confused by Plato's rules regarding poetry and education. First of all, I did not realize the Greeks depended on epic poetry to educate young ones. But is he saying he valued honor and courage over fear, love and some of the other erratic emotions present in so many Greek tales? And regardless of it's effectiveness, isn't emotive art still mimesis?
Even though I feel like I was left with more questions than answers, I am hoping class will clear some of them up, and allow for more conversation.

better late than never...

hello, class. thought i would attempt to join the blogosphere (or at least the sphere of our class) with a PAWC blog. i'll post my reactions as well as some funny and hopefully relevant stuff. so here it goes, first funny video.