And this time it meant a separate entrance and a very, very long climb in a "blind" stairway (which was almost like a slightly more decorated fire stair) to the top of the auditorium. If I remember correctly I was in the very last row of the gallery (the top most level). The second time I went I sat in a cheap seat. However, the theater itself (the auditorium) was every bit as impressive as photographs communicate - maybe even more so. (And maybe just a bit bigger than those of a Broadway theater.)
For an opera house, the public spaces were not grand and impressive, but rather kind of smallish and intimate - more on the order of a grand residence than a grand theater. The Paris Opera House (which I've only seen in pictures) it was not. The interior spaces at the Met were not all that impressive. I also have to say that I was kind of disappointed in the interior spaces (hallways, lobbies, stairways, etc.) of the theater. So had we not had seats for the Grand Tier, I wouldn't have been able to see much of the old Met. Patrons seated in other areas of the theater, used separate entrances. Only the seats for the orchestra level, the boxes and the Grand Tier were accessible through the main lobby. As it turns out, this seating location was important in terms of seeing the interior of the theater, as the old Met (like many theaters of its day) separated out those who had expensive seats from those who had cheap seats. The first time I went, the part of the theater I sat in was the Grand Tier (which, if I remember correctly, is the balcony directly above the one that containing the private boxes). Thought you might enjoy some of my observations about the old Met, which I visited twice as a kid (in part to see it before it was torn down). As a lifelong New Yorker (and lifelong student of New York) who's old enough to remember the original Metropolitan Opera (albeit as a kid), I'm very impressed by your blog - I especially like the photos (which aren't the same ones that come up all the time).
0 kommentar(er)
