Trainman2001, I think this is a great project. Looking forward to seeing it develop.
As a painter myself, who had studied Hopper in school, I have a few comments/observations about Nighthawks.
As for the diner not having a door, actually it does have one in sight and another implied... There is the tan door on the right, which does give a visual "entrance" to the scene. However, it is visually blocked and boxed in by various lines (red counter, green & black window frame) and so "inaccessible". Also note how the right hand pane of the front window is the same rectangle shape of the rear tan door. This composition arrangement creates depth by forced perspective.
As for the implied door, that is based upon the viewers own knowledge, i.e.you "know" it is a pubic restaurant so there has to be an entrance. The forward angle of the front window not only draws the viewer into the entire scene, but also implies an entrance door just out of sight to the right.
The composition of no obvious door, the rectilinear shapes boxing the figures in and other aspects do create the trapped in space and time effect.
Hopper also used artistic license in not showing any reflections in the window glass. This makes the painting dramatically easier to render and also adds an irony of making the figures more accessible (i.e. no glass - yes, your mind's eye does notice that) while still being trapped, as described above. Note how the light from the diner illuminates the buildings across the street, creating a rectangular shape, but there is no reflection in the building's windows. In fact, a second light source is implied, probably a street light, making the white triangle on the interior wall and shadow on the desk. Still no reflection in the window glass.
Nighthawks does display the compositional tool that Hopper relied upon for just about every painting, that is how the viewer is cut off from the main image by a line or series of lines. As in this train themed painting...
In Nighthawks, the main image is isolated by the black shadow on the sidewalk and the green line of the window sill.
Not to sound overtly negative, but every critique has good and bad... Notice how the painting does not show feet. In fact, look at any Hopper painting and you will not find well rendered feet. He could not paint feet. In the case of Nighthawks it works just fine. You may also note in various Hopper paintings poorly rendered hands. He didn't do hands and feet well. And every female model in all his paintings is his wife. She would not let him use models.
All that said, Hopper's Nighthawk is a great painting. And yes, I have seen the real painting multiple times. But personally, I feel Nighthawks and a few other Hopper paintings are positive anomalies. The majority of his work could be described as static and quite boring actually. But hey, he gave us Nighthawks, which is more then any artist can really aspire to.
Sorry if you find this lengthy and dull.
Good luck with your project.
