The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Monday, September 28, 2015 — 5A

Classifieds

Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com

ACROSS
1 Borscht veggies
6 Garden
neighbors of
glads, perhaps
10 “Looking at it
differently,” in
texts
14 Play the coquette
15 Part of MIT: Abbr.
16 Make all better
17 *Last leg of a
journey
19 Cleveland’s lake
20 Protruding-lip
expression
21 Made minor
adjustments to
23 Enjoy snowy
trails
26 Constellation
bear
28 Discussion
groups
29 Stephen King’s
harassed high
schooler
31 Shiny photo
33 Great Plains
natives
34 Largest Greek
island
35 Roll of cash
38 Comes out on
top
39 Broadway
productions
40 Actress Sorvino
41 “Just a __!”
42 How not to talk in
libraries
43 Piquant
44 Stereotypically
wealthy city area
46 Clavell novel of
feudal Japan
47 Take out a loan
49 Ice hockey feint
51 Observe
52 Intermittently
54 Perfume
container
56 Fava or soya
57 *Matching
breakfast nook
furniture
62 Spy novelist
Ambler
63 Japanese noodle
64 Midterms, e.g.
65 “The __ Ranger”
66 Chapel seating
67 Assemble, as
equipment

DOWN
1 Texter’s soul
mate
2 Yalie
3 A, in Austria
4 Mouse catcher
5 Arch city
6 Catchers’ gloves
7 __ vez: Spanish
“once”
8 High-ranking
NCO
9 Gumbo cookers
10 Pacific and
Atlantic
11 *Thanksgiving
night snacks
12 Bay window
13 Pays attention to
18 “Be glad to”
22 Effortlessness
23 Garbage haulers
24 News anchor
Couric
25 *Cold War
barrier
27 Bad way to run a
yacht?
30 Legal thing
32 Indecent
34 Vittles
36 Take issue (with)
37 “Tell It to My
Heart” singer
Taylor __

39 Decelerated
40 Chinese
chairman
42 Molecule part
43 Broadway
building, and
where to find the
ends of the
answers to
starred clues
45 Royal son
46 “SNL” segment
47 Biblical tower site

48 Alamogordo’s
county
50 Odds alternative
53 Either team on
the field
55 LPGA golfer
Thompson
58 Without delay
59 Droop in the
middle
60 Down Under 
bird
61 Baker’s meas.

By Lila Cherry
©2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
09/28/15

09/28/15

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Monday, September 28, 2015

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

WWW.CARLSONPROPERTIES.- 

COM
734‑332‑6000

RACKETBALL 
PICK-UP 
game 
CCRB @ noon on M, W & F. All skill 

levels, male and female welcome

 3 BEDROOM TOWNHOME
 2 1/2 bath with den, incl. all appliances, 
full size washer and dryer 
1275 Wisteria ‑ $1,700/mo for 1 yr lease
Call 734‑663‑7633 for more info

! NORTH CAMPUS 1-2 Bdrm. !
! Riverfront/Heat/Water/Parking. !
! www.HRPAA.com !

THESIS EDITING, LANGUAGE,
organization, format. All Disciplines.
734/996‑0566 or writeon@iserv.net 

SERVICES

FOR RENT

TV COLUMN

Who’s a TV author?
L

ast spring, I enrolled in a 
class called “Hitchcock and 
Modernity.” I’m a certified 

Hitchcock fanatic and freely spend 
my time writing unassigned essays 
about “Ver-
tigo” and the 
male gaze, so 
the opportu-
nity to learn 
about some 
of my favorite 
movies in a 
class setting 
was impos-
sible to pass 
up. Still, as I 
clicked the 
“register” button, something about 
the course’s title made my skin 
crawl. Hitchcock and Modernity. 
Like countless other English classes 
at the University, this course would 
be focused on a single author and 
his body of texts, noting repeated 
themes and language and analyzing 
their significance — but authorship 
in film is not as simplistic as this 
method implies.

Critics and academics have 

been looking at movies this way for 
over 50 years. Writers for a French 
film journal called Cahiers du 
Cinema coined the term auteur to 
describe a superior group of direc-
tors. Their movies would always 
be more interesting and deserv-
ing of analysis than those written 
by their second-rung (metteur en 
scène) counterparts, because these 
authors possessed more talent than 
just technical competence and the 
ability to tell actors to move around 
a room. An auteur imbued his 
films with his own personal touch, 
and each stroke of genius could be 
traced back to his other movies and 
the patterns analyzed for mean-
ing. The theory was later adopted 
by American critics, who added a 
whole mess of qualifications to be 
an auteur: An auteur’s movies must 
get better and better for his whole 
career, he had to have a godlike 
command of how his story was 
told and surpass all the financial 
and creative difficulties that the 
other hacks working on his movie 
presented him with. At the end, the 
auteur’s movie would stand as a 
singular representation of his vision 
and innovation.

This theory began to lose steam 

in the years following the 1960s as 
other critics pointed out the flaws 
in the auteur logic. Choice directors 
like Orson Welles and Hitchcock 
didn’t make amazing movies for 
their whole lives, and any of the 
second-tier filmmakers probably 
could have made a film less bloated 
than Welles’s “F for Fake.” And 
what about the other authors of 
movies — screenwriters, who have 
just as much a hand in creating a 
film’s symbolism and meaning? 
What about women and filmmakers 
of color, who often aren’t afforded 
the same opportunities to rise 
above studio restrictions with their 
cinematic voices intact? And what 
about TV, where directors don’t 

hold quite as much esteem, and it’s 
anybody’s guess who will end up 
getting public credit for creating an 
acclaimed TV show? With all these 
inconsistencies, the auteur theory 
has died and been laid to rest in the 
pages of my film theory textbook. 
Well, almost.

Since “The Sopranos” kicked off 

the “Golden Age” of TV, the small 
screen has become the new hot spot 
for powerful cinematic authors. It’s 
the series’ showrunner who usually 
gets the auteur treatment, because 
he holds a role similar to the movie 
director. In most TV writers’ rooms, 
the decisions for plotting the season 
and formulating character arcs 
rest with the showrunner. Because 
many series feature the work of 
multiple writers and directors in a 
given season, the auteur crown goes 
to the person who sits on throne 
and makes everything happen. This 
logic isn’t without fault.

A few weeks ago, I talked to a 

high school friend about “Breaking 
Bad,” and she must have name-
dropped Vince Gilligan 60 times. 
Among other accomplishments, Gil-
ligan is apparently the man to thank 
for Skyler White’s amazing char-
acter development, her becoming 
more steely and fearless with every 
passing episode. Gilligan may have 
set up Skyler’s story trajectory and 
maybe written a few of the episodes 
himself, but a huge part of the praise 
should go to Anna Gunn’s strong 
and stunning performance. It’s a 
crime not to mention Gunn’s name, 
or Michael Slovis’s for cinematog-
raphy or Rian Johnson’s directon 
of that awesome scene with the 
knife. Vince Gilligan belongs in any 
discussion of “Breaking Bad,” but 
the show is great because of the col-
laboration of hundreds of talented 
people apart from the guy whose 
name appears as the closing image 
of every episode.

Auteur logic has gotten even 

messier in recent years, because 
showrunners aren’t the only ones 
on a pedestal anymore. Big-name 
producers often dominate the 
conversations of their respective 
shows largely because of advertising 
strategies. People are more likely to 
watch a show if it has a recogniz-
able pedigree. Shonda Rhimes, the 
showrunner of “Grey’s Anatomy” 
and “Scandal,” is marketed as the 
sole creator of “TGIT” Thursdays 
on ABC: “Grey’s,” “Scandal” and 
“How to Get Away With Murder” 
are all fun primetime soaps cen-
tered around compelling women 
in high-powered jobs. However, 
ABC does not really care if anybody 
knows that Peter Nowalk is the 
showrunner of “How to Get Away 
With Murder,” and technically has 
as much influence in creating the 
story arcs of his show as Vince Gil-
ligan has for “Breaking Bad.” ABC 
can manipulate viewers’ knowledge 
of Rhimes as a proven TV auteur 
— “HTGAWM” was one of the 
highest-rated network dramas dur-
ing its run last fall, and at least some 
of its success is due to fans’ loyalty 

to Rhimes’s empire.

The showrunner is also not 

as infallible as he may seem, and 
his esteem depends upon the 
excellence of the team who sup-
ports him. Cary Fukunaga’s adept 
directorial work on the first season 
of “True Detective” was unlike 
almost anything on TV — his iconic 
minutes-long tracking shot and the 
way he and his supporting cinema-
tography team shot the lush and 
dreamlike Louisiana landscape 
made the first season appear as 
something out of a Southern Gothic 
novel. Despite the fact that crit-
ics (including myself) applauded 
Pizzolatto for the moody writing 
and compelling characters, in 
retrospect, he couldn’t have been 
the singular auteur of that season. 
In isolating Pizzolatto and taking 
away the stunningly talented Fuku-
naga, Matthew McConaughey and 
Woody Harrelson, the show’s ridic-
ulous writing comes into clearer 
view. The first season also had silly 
dialogue masquerading as MFA-
smart (never forget that “time is a 
flat circle”), but it sounded damn 
philosophical coming out of the 
mouth of an Academy Award-win-
ning actor. Tell Vince Vaughn to say 
those same words, and … somehow, 
the effect isn’t the same.

Evidently, issues of authorship 

are still very relevant. TV fans and 
critics worship the cult of the show-
runner, but not invariably — pro-
ducers, stars, writers and directors 
often slip through the cracks and 
gain authorial status. Marketing 
plays a huge role in who audiences 
designate as an author of a show. 
Commercials for USA’s “Mr. Robot” 
proclaim that the show was created 
by “a producer of ‘True Detective,’ ” 
and early ABC publicity sells “The 
Catch” as a TGIT Shonda Rhimes 
original (then-showrunner Jen-
nifer Schuur’s name is nowhere to 
be found). The new TV auteur is 
singlehandedly responsible for cre-
ating his shows, improbably flouting 
the network standards and restric-
tions to deliver excellent content 
that only becomes more excellent 
when it’s analyzed and picked apart 
for clues of the author’s genius.

The production of TV traces 

back to the collective work of 
hundreds of craftsmen, network 
executives and businesspeople and 
the audience itself — as has been 
proven in film, the TV showrunner 
is not a unilateral creator of mean-
ing. But there are still freshman 
boys who toss off-hand comments 
about “House of Cards” featuring 
the calling cards of David Fincher’s 
oeurve. And there are still classes 
at the University of Michigan that 
operate under the assumption that 
one man’s singular genius was 
enough to override everyone else’s 
working on that movie, enough to 
make those films his.

Gilke is VINCE GILLIGAN, VILCE 

GILLIGAN, VINCE GILLIGAN, 

VINCE GILLIGAN. To praise her, 

e-mail chloeliz@umich.edu.

CHLOE

GILKE

More like trap prince

ALBUM REVIEW

By KENNETH SELANDER

Daily Arts Writer

In mid-late Fall 2014, my good 

friend 
Zach 

introduced 
the 

rap-loving 
fac-

tion of my friend 
group to Fetty 
Wap, who had a 
song that’d been 
getting airplay in 
the tristate area. 
Zach 
is 
from 

New 
Jersey, 

and told us Fetty lived 15 minutes 
away from him and had one seri-
ous song at the time, “Trap Queen.” 
We listened and were impressed – it 
definitely had its own vibe. “Trap 
Queen” was something different. 
It would go on to blow up a month 
later that winter. The sequence of 
one seven three and eight has never 
been so hype.

First off, Fetty Wap is a super 

easy guy to like. The Vines I’ve seen 
of him joking about his trademark 
missing eye show a friendly per-
sonal side, and he comes across as a 
humble and genuine dude.

Another huge positive charac-

teristic many see in Fetty is that he 
has a refreshing, unique and new 
sound. Moving beyond the general 

public’s timeless love affair with 
“Trap Queen,” the sum of the parts 
that compose Fetty Wap’s vocals 
is unique on the whole, even if the 
major individual components seem 
recycled.

T-Pain was the first time I’d 

heard auto-tune seriously used for 
singing in hip hop. He had his day 
in the spotlight, and nowadays auto-
tune has taken off amongst rappers 
who don’t seriously sing (i.e. Young 
Thug, Future). Fetty’s sound brings 
me back to seventh grade sleepaway 
camp where I first heard “Buy You 
a Drank,” by T-Pain, but Fetty has 
a yodeling vibrato that does set him 
apart from other vocalists today. On 
occasion, Fetty will also engage in 
leaned-out mumblings that a num-
ber of Atlanta rappers use today.

So, after throwing on the head-

phones and giving Fetty Wap several 
listens, I’ll summarize: meh.

If you take out the four hit songs 

that you and I have heard 100 times 
and already love, all of which were 
released far in advance of Fetty Wap 
dropping, I’d give this album a C. 
“Trap Queen” and “679” were on Up 
Next, “RGF Island” was on Zoo Style 
and “My Way” was on the 1738 Remy 
Boyz mixtape and then remixed 
with Drake in July.

For me, these releases killed a lot 

of the hype. Technically the songs 
are on the record, so I include them 
in my grading, but I’m sad to say that 
none of the other 16 tracks on Fetty 
Wap live up to the excitement or 
quality these songs already created 
for him well ahead of the album.

I give Fetty Wap a disappointed 

B-, but damn, Fetty can do a hook 
and chorus right. For this reason, I 
think Fetty needs to limit Monty’s 
(aka Montana Buckz) presence on 
his tracks. Yes, they gel on “679,” but 
not on “My Way,” or “No Days Off.” 
Fetty needs better rappers to match 
his energy – like when he teamed up 
with Gucci and Quavo on his “Trap 
Queen” remix. His music is all about 
energy, and Monty’s lyrical callous-
ness and frequently awkward flow 
can’t keep up. Even one of Gucci 
Mane’s better-than-mediocre vers-
es that got cut and pasted into “Trap 
Queen” while he’s locked up flows 
well.

I get keeping true to his Remy 

Boyz, a theme on a majority of his 
songs on Fetty Wap, and trying to 
put them on. But if Fetty wants to 
further improve his outlook as an 
artist, I think he needs to work on 
recruiting upper echelon talent for 
his own albums going forward, not 
just being a feature on other artists’ 
tracks.

B-

Fetty Wap

Fetty Wap

300 Enter-

tainment

CHVRCHES’ ‘Every 
Open Eye’ pulsates

ALBUM REVIEW

By MELINA GLUSAC

Daily Arts Writer

I can’t lie — I only got turned on 

to the brilliance of CHVRCHES, a 
three-piece Scottish electronic 
extravaganza, 
some 
six 

months 
ago. 
After 

falling 
down 

a 
YouTube 

rabbit hole one 
night, I came 
across 
their 

cover of Arctic 
Monkeys’ 
“Do I Wanna Know?” As this 
was easily one of the best songs 
of 2013, how anyone could do a 
cover any justice — I didn’t wanna 
know. CHVRCHES had some 
seriously misplaced audacity. So 
reluctantly, I clicked, and about 
five seconds later was proven 
so wrong. Sexy, gripping synths 
guided by desperate, pint-sized 
vocals filled the studio. It was 
enticing, exciting and inventive 
just like the original, but served 
the starkest contrast, too. My 
view count to this day probably 
ranks in the hundreds.

And so goes the band’s bumping 

sophomore release, Every Open 
Eye — it’s beautifully defined by 
the characteristics rife in the 
cover video, and each listen brings 
something fresh to the ears. Sad-
yet-happy dance beats permeate 
as Scottish pixie lead singer 
Lauren Mayberry coos over lost 
loves and electronic hope. She’s 
apathetic with delicious little 
dashes of passion: an appealing, 
variety-laden 
combination, 

persuasive to the listener at best. 
Backed up with the magic synth 
fingers and occasional vocals of 
Iain Cook and Martin Doherty, 
Every Open Eye rarely strays from 
its predestined greatness.

It’s hard to believe this is a 

sophomore release for the Scots, 
who’ve been around since 2011. 
They brought their sound to the 
electronic world with their first 
album, The Bones of What You 
Believe, and it’s only gotten better 
with age. It’s distinct, refined and 
akin to only them, avoiding any 

forthright genre clichés (i.e., d-d-
drop the bass, Spanglish Pitbull 
raps and so on). “Clearest Blue” 
off the new album is no exception. 
The scene it sets: a steamy, neon 
club, pulsating with energy right 
from the start. Things get epic 
after the meaty, German dance 
hall beats drop at 2:15 and stay 
raving and jumping and sweaty 
until the finish. What’s that on the 
bottom of your club heels? Glitter 
and infinity.

“Never 
Ending 
Circles” 
is 

a strong opener and similar 
in 
its 
unwavering 
liveliness. 

Interesting, tiny synth quirks 
weave their way in and out, as 
they do on “Leave a Trace” and 
“Empty Threat.” All the songs feel 
a bit experimental but never lose 
that CHVRCHES listening factor, 
and Mayberry’s voice should 
take a lot of that credit. It’s hard 
not to keep discussing it because 
it’s crucial — almost as if Hayley 
Williams (Paramore) inhaled a 
substantial breath of helium, in 
the least annoying way possible. 
“Empty Threat” sounds like it 
could be an Anime theme song, 
or the accompaniment to one of 
those shady, low-quality YouTube 
videos devoted to Anime ships 
and lovers. Yet — always yet 
— CHVRCHES music is still 
alluring, still prodigious.

Sometimes, 
though, 

consistently high-octane tempos 
and driving synths can get 
repetitive. Fast-paced tunes in 
a sequence can’t slow down, 

content-wise, and, unfortunately, 
the album’s vibes glitch a bit on 
“Keep You On My Side” and “Make 
Them Gold.” It’s not that these are 
pitiful songs — they’re actually 
quite good. But “good” becomes 
a problem when every other 
velocity-driven ditty is fantastic 
and unique. The weak handful’s 
typical synths, lyrics and melodic 
lines are boring, especially when 
the band has proven — just a song 
earlier — that they can do better, 
more inventive work.

“Bury It” and “Playing Dead” 

turn it around with their hopeful 
lyrics, and “High Enough to Carry 
You Over” and “Down Side of Me” 
do the same. The latter two feature 
Cook singing with Mayberry and 
taking some lines entirely himself, 
which all lends to cool, Human 
League-esque 
trade-offs 
and 

juxtaposition.

Mayberry sings us away with 

“Afterglow,” the only slow, calm 
track on the compilation. The 
group was initially reluctant to 
include it, as the original cut was 
techy like the rest of Every Open 
Eye, but on the last day of recording 
they stripped and slowed it down. 
Mayberry laid down all the vocals 
in a single, emotional take. It 
sounds raw like that: like the 
aftermath of a wild rave, laying 
down in the middle of the dance 
floor after all is gone but your one 
true love, confetti in your hair, 
neon lights still flickering with 
every bit of hope you felt when 
you first got there.

B

Every 
Open Eye

CHVRCHES

Virgin

VIRGIN

Can you see their eyes pulsating?

