The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, December 2, 2015 — 5A

TV NOTEBOOK

By CHRISTIAN KENNEDY

Daily Arts Writer

Over Thanksgiving break I did 
what most college students home 
for the holidays do: avoid family 
squabbles, drink and eat a tad too 
much and binge watch the televi-
sion I missed out on in college. My 
long-weekend bender included 
making my family start “Grace 
& 
Frankie,” 
rewatching 
old 
“Scandal” episodes as my sister 
watched for the first time, binging 
the entire first season of “Jessica 
Jones” and finally watching the 
most recent episode of “Empire.” 
On “Empire,” the cliff-hanger 
before the fall finale depicted 
Jamal Lyon (a gay R&B singer) 
laying a smooch on Alicia Keys 
(sploosh). Jamal’s exploration had 
me thinking about my own sexu-
ality and its representation on 
mainstream television: Where are 
all the bisexuals?
Television has made enormous 
strides toward depicting gay and 
lesbian characters in program-
ming. Between David and Keith 
on “Six Feet Under,” Connor and 
Oliver on “How To Get Away 
With Murder,” the ensemble of 
“The L Word” and many more, 
gay characters have found them-
selves increasingly morphed into 
in-depth principal characters and 
no longer the recurring neigh-
bor. Nonetheless, one letter in 
LGBTQ hasn’t found itself as for-
tunate, which is to be expected 
in the slowly adapting TV world. 
I mean, how in the hell is Viola 
Davis the first African-American 
woman to win the Emmy for 
leading actress in a drama series? 
As she said herself, “You simply 
can’t win an Emmy for roles that 
aren’t there.” I sat and watched her 
speech with tears in my eyes, as 
did millions of others for the same 
reason: progress.
Of course, that doesn’t mean 
that the representation of minori-
ties on television is perfect, nor 
that of gay characters. Davis 
portrays the increasingly com-

plex defense attorney on “How 
To Get Away With Murder” who 
recently kissed a woman during 
primetime, one season after her 
husband’s murder. Is Annalise 
Keating bisexual? We don’t know. 
The plight of bisexuals on televi-
sion isn’t due to a lack of charac-
ters who enjoy sex with men and 
women — it’s a problem of seman-
tics. “Bisexual”: It’s a word fla-
grantly missing from the contents 
of my DVR and Netflix queue.
A prime example, which has 
been brought up before, is Piper 
Chapman on “Orange Is The New 
Black.” A show that has been a 
trailblazer for gender, racial and 
trans exploration and depiction 
somehow skated over its main 
character’s sexuality. Not once 
is the husband-having, Laura 
Prepon-banging 
protagonist 
described as “bisexual.” Clearly, 
I’m not here to decide Chapman’s 
sexuality — that’s up to her and 
her alone — but a storyline that 
centers on a woman’s enjoyment 
of relations with her husband 
and girlfriend is a clear segue to 
exploring a sexuality that faces 
much scrutiny, even inside the 
LGBTQ community. Why is such 
a progressive show shying away 
from bisexuality?

As most students do with 
research, I started at Wikipe-
dia. And it’s clear from the list of 
media portrayals of bisexuality 
that we have a problem. Maura 
Isles from the TNT crime-drama 
“Rizzoli & Isles” included with a 
description stating, “she has never 
been with a Frenchwoman, imply-

ing she’s been with other women.” 
Is this what bisexuality has been 
reduced to? Isles is 100 percent 
free to do whatever she damn well 
likes with whomever. However, 
does this simple absence of infor-
mation declare her a bisexual?
Bisexuality, from my experi-
ence, has been most criticized 
for lack of structure within 
the term. Does Jamal kissing a 
woman once after a season of 
being gay make him bisexual? 
Does Annalise’s kiss define her 
sexuality? Does Maura’s decla-
ration that she has never been 
with a French woman prove she 
plays for both teams? Not at all. 
It proves that now, more than 
ever, sexual exploration is prom-
inent in the media landscape, 
and for that exact reason, it’s 
shocking to see the dismissal of 
one-fifth of LGBTQ.
Sexual exploration deserves a 
place on television. Sexuality is 
undoubtedly fluid, and anyone 
may enjoy what they’d like as 
long as it’s between consenting 
adults. But bisexuality yearns for 
a more definitive role in today’s 
culture — certainly more so than 
being an underlying concept 
behind characters’ exploration. I 
don’t want a gay man who kisses 
one woman. Or a woman with a 
husband who has had relations 
with one woman. I want bisexual 
— a character who exemplifies 
what the word means. It’s not 
someone who just loves sleeping 
with everyone. It’s not someone 
who’s confused. It’s someone 
who actively chooses the label, 
instead of having it thrust upon 
them by writers’ subtleties.
And it’s not an either-or situa-
tion. I sat with tears as Viola Davis 
accepted her Emmy. A smile was 
plastered across my face when 
Jamal Lyon came out, and I adore 
Piper’s storyline. The representa-
tion and success of these charac-
ters and their respective shows 
exemplify the public’s readiness 
for honest, representative televi-
sion. I want to be represented.

‘Saints & Strangers’ 
a grim period drama

By SAM ROSENBERG

Daily Arts Writer

There’s 
nothing 
that 
says 
Thanksgiving like watching a 
dramatic reenactment of the date 
that 
inspired 
the 
holiday. 
If you know a 
thing or two 
about 
Ameri-
can 
history, 
the 
story 
of 
Thanksgiving 
isn’t exactly one 
of 
celebration 
and 
gratitude. 
In 
fact, 
the 
pilgrims 
who 
sailed the Mayflower faced rough 
living conditions and conflict 
with the Native Americans before 
and after the first Thanksgiving 
harvest. National Geographic’s 
two-part miniseries, “Saints & 
Strangers,” provides the audience 
with a bleak retelling of these 
events. Because it uses a period 
drama formula, “Saints & Strang-
ers” isn’t particularly refreshing 
or insightful. However, the mini-
series captures the gritty realism 
of the battle for survival between 
the natives and pilgrims. Even 
though the show draws from text-
book facts and gravitas in order 
to sensationalize Thanksgiving’s 
origins, the story is strengthened 
by dark visuals, fine acting and a 
chilling score.
Set in 1620, the first episode 
follows devout Englishman Wil-
liam Bradford (Vincent Kart-
heiser, “Mad Men”) and his 
harrowing journey on the May-
flower to the New World. Along 
with Bradford and his hapless 
wife 
Dorothy 
(Anna 
Camp, 
“True Blood”), the Plymouth 
pilgrims seek refuge in America 
from religious persecution in 

Europe. Once they reach a soon-
to-be Cape Cod, Bradford and 
the rest of his crew (Ron Liv-
ingston, “Office Space”; Ray Ste-
venson, “Thor”; Michael Jibson, 
“Les Misérables”) start building 
a community, only to run into 
trouble with the Wampanoag 
tribe, led by the dubious Mas-
sasoit (Raoul Trujillo, “Sicar-
io”) and his emissary Squanto 
(Kalani Queypo, “Slow West”). 
The second part, set a year later, 
delves deeper into the grow-
ing tensions between the tribe 
and the pilgrims, with hostil-
ity increasing on both sides. 
Despite several faults within the 
storytelling, “Saints & Strang-
ers” succeeds in other aspects.
While both parts of “Saints 
& Strangers” are lengthy, the 
sequences in each are briskly 
paced (the ride on the May-
flower only lasts for 22 minutes 
of the first part). Kartheiser’s 
impeccable 
performance 
as 
Bradford stands out among the 
rest of the cast, embodying a 
real-life figure coming to terms 
with loss, death, faith and sur-
vival in 17th century America. 
The same goes for Queypo’s 
fierce portrayal as Squanto, who 
also struggles to maintain sta-
bility in his life when his land 
and people are colonized. Both 
characters carry the plot along, 
as they fight for themselves 
and their fellow kinsmen while 
seeking to mediate a peaceful 
coexistence with one another. In 
order to accentuate the gloomy 
aesthetics of “Saints & Strang-
ers,” composers Hans Zimmer 
(“Inception”) and Lorne Balfe 
(“Terminator: Genisys”) infuse 
an intense score with somber 
strings and ominous drums. Yet 
even with all of its redeeming 
qualities, “Saints & Strangers” is 

missing an edge that could dis-
tinguish itself from other his-
torical dramas. 
Whether or not the events 
depicted in “Saints & Strangers” 
are inaccurate or offensive, the 
story is made to feel very one-
sided. The two monikers in the 
miniseries’ title indicate a type 
of prejudicial separation, with 
the Native Americans being 
marked as the “strangers” and 
the pilgrims as the “saints.” 
Granted, the writers of the 
miniseries probably took some 
dramatic liberties in order to 
make the story more gripping 
for television. But instead of 
humanizing both perspectives 
of the natives and pilgrims, the 
miniseries plays by strictly his-
torical means. The natives are 
portrayed as cunning, vengeful 
“savages,” whereas the pilgrims 
come off valiant and righteous. 
It seems as though the pilgrims 
aren’t given as harsh of a treat-
ment as the natives, despite 
laying their foundation onto an 
already occupied land and tak-
ing away resources from the 
natives. Perhaps white privilege 
doesn’t just exist in the realm of 
“Saints & Strangers,” but within 
the writing of it as well.
Given its historical relevance 
though, “Saints & Strangers” 
does a mostly adequate job of 
reproducing the characters and 
events during the first Thanks-
giving. But even with its dramat-
ic take on an iconic American 
event, the miniseries could have 
a more compelling twist had the 
natives been depicted in a more 
sensitive light. If you’re a history 
buff, “Saints & Strangers” can 
be captivating to watch. But if 
you’re not, then it may read like 
any normal high school history 
textbook brought to life.

TV REVIEW

We’re ready for more 
bisexuality on TV

of Music, Theatre & Dance, said in 
an interview with The Michigan 
Daily. 
The emphasis on autumnal 
yellow lighting and sensory details 
create a virtual domain more 
beautiful than reality itself.
While 
watching 
a 
scene 
between Woodnut, a participant of 
the Hideaway, and Iris, the child he 
desires, I saw both how disturbing 
their relationship was, as well as 
how happy they were. Woodnut 
wants the pleasure and beauty 
of a real relationship, though 
this desire doesn’t disregard the 
immorality of his indulgence.
“We’re trying to make the play 

more humane. It’s about human 
relationships,” 
Rouverol 
said. 
“We see what this vicarious world 
allows these people to become.”
The Nether is seen as a life 
outside of consequence, and the 
play considers whether or not that 
world can truly exist.
“In certain ways, The Nether 
gives you an opportunity to 
live a life that you couldn’t live 
otherwise and have an identity 
that you couldn’t have otherwise,” 
Rouverol said.
So could “The Nether” be 
viewed as a cautionary tale 
towards the effects of our digital 
world today? Rouverol thinks not.
“I think it’s actually shockingly 
and 
disturbingly 
unbiased,” 
Rouverol said. “I don’t think the 
world of ‘The Nether’ is that far 
away, and in certain ways, we’re 

already there.”
As liberating as the digital 
world 
may 
seem, 
Woodnut 
simply concludes, “Nothing here 
is truly free.”
With a cast of five, each 
character provides a different 
angle toward this virtual reality. 
Rouverol credits her experience 
as an acting student toward her 
new role as a director and how 
it’s contributed to shaping this 
work. She has been able to see the 
play as a larger picture and shape 
all aspects of production both on 
and off the stage.
“Sometimes when you’re in 
it, you can’t see the effect that 
your role is playing on the 
whole picture,” Rouverol said. 
“I feel really lucky to be able to 
do this.”

NETHER
From Page 1

THE ONLY TRUE KNOWLEDGE 
IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SELF

ARE YOU EVEN A PERSON?

To make your voice be heard,
apply to Daily Arts, e-mail

ARTS@MICHIGANDAILY.COM.

‘Good Dinosaur’ 
only for children

Pixar’s plot can’t 
match stunning 
animation

By LAUREN WOOD

Daily Arts Writer

What if the asteroid that 
brought about the extinction of 
all dinosaurs never hit Earth? 
How 
would 
these 
crea-
tures 
evolve 
over 
millions 
of years, and 
how 
would 
humans 
fit 
into this equa-
tion? 
These 
are 
questions 
Pixar works to 
answer with its 
newest feature 
“The Good Dinosaur,” a senti-
mental flick about family, brav-
ery and survival. More than 
other successful Pixar movies 
though, “The Good Dinosaur” 
seems directed solely toward 
children, with a simple story 
that might leave older viewers 
searching for something great-
er. In other words, if you’re 
looking for a movie to cry over, 
this is it. But, if you’re ready 
for some of the more elaborate, 
well-developed 
storytelling 
Pixar has become known for 
with films like “Up,” “Finding 
Nemo” and “Inside Out,” then 
the film’s predictable, optimis-
tic resolution may fall flat.
The story reflects an old 
Western epic, opening with a 
picturesque family farm owned 
by a pair of dinosaurs along 
with their three children, Buck, 

Libby and Arlo. The small and 
gangly runt of the litter, Arlo 
can never quite find his footing 
within the group but is continu-
ally reassured by his father that 
he will one day be great. How-
ever, after Arlo fails at his task 
of catching the “critter” that 
continually steals their food, 
his father goes in search of it 
himself and is killed in a flash 
flood. As the family struggles 
to keep the farm running, Arlo 
is swept away in the river and 
finds himself miles from home 
with an epic journey ahead 
of him. Befriending the small 
“critter,” the prehistoric human 
called Spot who got him into 
this trouble, the duo works 
their way back toward the fam-
ily farm, encountering mali-
cious pterodactyls, a family of 
rancher T-rexes and a host of 
other adventures along the way.
Though the plot is varied 
and fast-paced enough to keep 
viewers interested, it’s the lack 
of a complicated main character 
that keeps this film from falling 
beside other Pixar super suc-
cesses. Comparing this to the 
animation powerhouse’s array 
of quest stories, the secondary 
characters that Arlo and Spot 
meet throughout their adven-
tures parallel “Nemo” ’s band of 
recovering fish-eater sharks or 
“Up” ’s crazed, dog-collecting 
pilot. But it’s the unpredictable 
and somewhat flawed main 
characters, like “Up” ’s soft-
hearted but crotchety Carl or 
“Nemo” ’s nervous and neurotic 
Marlin, that add a much-need-
ed third layer to those films. 
Though “The Good Dinosaur” 
pulls an unconventional move 
in reversing the master/pet role, 

making the dinosaur the master 
and the human the pet, the feral 
child Spot and good-hearted 
Arlo prove to be somewhat one-
dimensional as characters, and 
they struggle to hold the audi-
ence’s interest.
The film succeeds in its 
animation though, laying the 
cartoon-like characters over 
hyper-realistic 
naturescapes. 
It’s nearly impossible to tell 
when looking at scenes of the 
river flowing through the forest 
or the mountain peaks emerg-
ing from the clouds, that we’re 
looking at computer-generated 
scenes. Placing the goofy-look-
ing characters within this real-
ism makes the film relatable 
in a way that going completely 
one direction or the other 
wouldn’t. Overly realistic dino-
saurs wouldn’t inspire the same 
kind of sympathy the cartoons 
do, but an animated landscape 
would give the story no sense of 
importance and Arlo’s struggle 
no real validity.
Thinking about the title after 
seeing the movie, it seems like 
nothing I’ve said here is espe-
cially revelatory. Arlo, in any 
way you can describe him, is 
exactly what the film makes 
says he will be: he’s “good.” 
And though that doesn’t make 
for the most complex story, the 
film is nonetheless enjoyable, 
with a solid, predictable char-
acter leading viewers through 
a string of strange and excit-
ing adventures. If anything, the 
film proves that the Western is 
not a stagnant genre of the past, 
but a story of discovering one-
self. The fight against nature is 
a timeless quest regardless of 
the context it’s crafted in.

B+

The Good 
Dinosaur

Walt Disney 
Studios

Rave and 

Quality 16

WALT DISNEY STUDIOS
“One day, Simba, all of this will be yours.”

Sexual 
exploration 
deserves a place 
on television.

B

Saints & 
Strangers

Two-part 
miniseries

National 

Geographic

FILM REVIEW

