I
love the arts for a lot of
reasons, but I mostly love
seeing myself. For me,
art allows innumerable points
of
entrance
and
reference,
a
million
spots to get
attached and
relate things
to myself or
my life. Self-
ish
young
millennial
that I am, I
love
appro-
priating other
artists’
nar-
ratives
into
something that serves me.
When I watch something
funny or weird or dramatic,
I don’t just take it for what it
is — I see shades of my own
funny, weird, dramatic exis-
tence. I’ll watch an episode of
“The Office” and think of the
friendships (and crushes) that
bloomed in the chilly upper-
floor newsroom I spent three
or five nights a week in. I’ll lis-
ten to “Caravan” by Van Mor-
rison and remember silly nights
traipsing through Ann Arbor
like a band of hippies. I’ll listen
to Courtney Barnett and that
weird empty feeling that has
been bugging me for the last
month or two will be echoed
through my earbuds and sound
beautiful.
When I say that I love some
piece of art, it’s usually because
it speaks to me like this. I see
myself. I know that art has its
own merits and matters beyond
what some narcissistic college
student can relate back to her
boring life. But, again, I am self-
ish. I’m writing a column with
my name attached to the head-
line and picking and choosing
the shit I think is important
to talk about. And right now,
I think we should talk about
“Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.”
“Crazy
Ex-Girlfriend”
is
The CW’s latest underrated
TV masterpiece. The show has
received a fair amount of criti-
cal acclaim, with leading lady
Rachel Bloom receiving a Gold-
en Globe and several laudatory
reviews from The Michigan
Daily. But the show doesn’t
have the numbers it deserves.
It’s on the brink of possible can-
cellation, and only a few of my
friends watch it.
I loathe reading columns that
are just extended advertise-
ments for an underappreciated
gem. Read/love/listen to/watch
this thing! Accept my sublime
taste in the television arts! But
I’ll forgo my moral oppositions,
because I am selfish and des-
perately want you to watch this
show. Yes, you. I am speaking
to you just like “Crazy Ex-Girl-
friend” speaks to me. Trust me,
you’ll love this show.
“Crazy
Ex-Girlfriend”
is
brilliant. Rachel Bloom is a
true star — like Tina Fey’s wit
and Chloe Gilke’s musical con-
fidence merged into an extra-
terrestrial
purveyor
of joy.
She manages to make Rebecca
Bunch — a character who would
be ridiculously unlikable on
paper into someone you love
and empathize viscerally with.
Rebecca is a little crazy. She
moves from New York City to
West Covina, Calif. in pursuit
of a guy she dated as a teenager.
But, as the show’s theme song
says, “the situation is a lot more
nuanced than that.” She’s mov-
ing because the tumult of New
York is exhausting. She’s tired
of chasing greatness and climb-
ing the corporate law ladder
and ignoring the emptiness of it
all. She wants to be happy and
live close to the beach, and she
could use a fresh start.
Reader, it’s hard not to see
yourself in that. Whether or not
your own psychological situa-
tion is as similar to Rebecca’s as
mine is — frankly, we’re both a
little unhinged and tend to pin
our dreams and aspirations on
a place or a person and hope
they’ll be enough to make us
happy again — there are a mil-
lion points of entry here. She’s
funny and joyful, like I’m sure
you are. She’s sometimes clue-
less but also very smart and
ambitious.
She
(and
nearly
every character on the show)
loves to sing, and the show
takes musical cues from the
likes of Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry,
Beyoncé and Billy Joel. Surely
some of that appeals to you?
“Crazy
Ex-Girlfriend”
is
preoccupied
with
relatable
struggles like making friends.
It’s crazy hard to make friends,
right? Rebecca is lonely and
wishing she had a crew of peo-
ple who love her, as I’m sure has
preoccupied you at one point. I
watch episodes like last week’s
“I’m Going to the Beach with
Josh and His Friends!” and feel
both incredibly grateful for my
own crew of friends and the
selfish desire to demand more
from them and wish that they
could be like characters in a
TV show and always hanging
around waiting for their lead-
ing lady to give them a story-
line. Rebecca desperately wants
to be liked and to be loved. Like
her show! Love her show!
If you care about romance,
“Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” has some
great fodder for your desperate
imagination. Rebecca’s object
of desire, the dopey-charming
Josh Chan, is sweet and sup-
portive, and his and Rebecca’s
scenes are especially tender.
Where she’s a ball of nerves,
Josh is happy as the Califor-
nia sunshine, and the sparks
of their scenes together keep
Rebecca going through the
tougher parts of her life. When
I watch the show, I remember
all the rays of sunshine that
I’ve loved, who gained even
more light by my own desperate
pursuit of their glow. There’s
also Greg, the snarky third leg
of the love triangle, who has
an obvious crush on Rebecca,
though she can’t see past her
ideal love for Josh. Maybe my
brain is fried from too much TV
— but reader, I’m almost certain
you’ve been in a situation like
this. Either you’ve loved some-
one who can’t see you beyond a
settling second pick or you’ve
broken a few hearts. I can tell.
You may be uncertain about
my recommendation, since I
love and frequently write about
depressing shows (“The Left-
overs”) or procedural dramas
about stoic lawyers who secret-
ly love each other (“The Good
Wife”). Rebecca Bunch may be
a lawyer with depression, but
I swear this show has appeal
beyond my own selfish appreci-
ation of seeing things I love and
relate to. Rebecca is a dynamic
female character unmatched
by most of her network peers.
Making comparisons to other
TV shows is dumb, but I’d
compare her to Amy Jellicoe
on “Enlightened” or Valerie
Cherish of “The Comeback” —
she’s a little broken, but driven
and sparkling and completely
whole. The show’s balance of
humor and primo plot develop-
ment is like something you’d
watch on HBO, maybe “Girls”
or “Silicon Valley.” The musical
numbers are like the funniest
“SNL” digital shorts put to life.
As
“Crazy
Ex-Girlfriend”
enters the critical time when
network execs decide if it’s
worth
keeping
around
or
should go in the trash bin of
shows that will inevitably be
revived in 15 years, this is your
call to watch the show. Watch
“Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” for the
music and silliness. Watch it
because you’ve been depressed
and want to watch other peo-
ple making a go at happiness.
Watch it because you’re look-
ing for someone like you, even
if she doesn’t look like or act
exactly like you do. Watch it
because I’ve given my passion-
ate, selfish recommendation.
Gilke is trying to see shades
of herself in Megan Fox. To
help her think of another celeb,
email chloeliz@umich.edu.
TV COLUMN
50 shades of Chloe:
Seeing myself on TV
CHLOE
GILKE
Why can’t I be a
Balmain ballerina?
KIM KARDASHIAN
She’s so cute I want to pick her out of the ground like a root vegetable.
By HANNAH SPARKS
For the Daily
Why is it that celebrity children
are so enticing? Maybe it’s because
they have access to things the
average person, can only dream
of, but will likely never have, i.e.
unlimited amounts of travel and
designer everything. For me,
the endless amount of designer
clothes, shoes, handbags, acces-
sories, coupled with the ability to
easily get involved in the fashion
industry, is what I envy the most.
Suri Cruise is the first styl-
ish celebrity offspring I had ever
learned about — really the first
child tabloid sensation of our
time. She already has a heel col-
lection that will forever exceed
mine. Oh and side note, that col-
lection reportedly includes some
custom red bottom shoes (AKA
Louboutins.) That’s right peo-
ple, a nine-year-old already has
Louboutins — let that sink in.
Brad and Angelina Jolie-Pitt
have six children, three of which
are adopted. These children have
attended movie premieres, red
carpet events and have been fea-
tured in movies as well as fashion
magazines alongside their par-
ents. There have been rumors that
“Brangelina” are looking to adopt
again, and to be honest, I find
myself wondering — why not me?
Jealous is the way I feel when I
see yet another Instagram post of
North West wearing custom Bal-
main. Exactly 13 weeks ago, Kim
Kardashian West posted a picture
of her beloved Nori in an adorable
Balmain outfit, with the caption
“My little Balmain Ballerina.”
Why, why can’t I be a Balmain
Ballerina? Besides the fact that
I can’t dance or afford Balmain,
why can’t that be me? I think I
was born into the wrong family.
Look, I love my family and they’re
great; but are they Gucci great?
Oh, the Wests…
There are open doors around
every corner for these accidental
starlets. Exhibit A: Romeo Beck-
ham. Romeo is one of David and
Victoria Beckham’s four chil-
dren. He was a trailblazer for the
Beckham children and celebrity
children alike when he debuted
his first Burberry ad campaign
for Spring/Summer 2013. He then
starred in two more Burberry
campaigns, both notably being
the Christmas campaigns for 2014
and 2015. I have a soft spot for
Romeo, and although I am seven
years his senior … I will wait for
him.
Lily-Rose Depp, the daugh-
ter of the talented and attractive
actor Johnny Depp, has recently
been working closely with Karl
Lagerfeld. While last year she
only found herself as the star of
Chanel’s 2015 eyewear campaign,
I can predict with 99 percent
accuracy that us peasants will see
her popping up in more of these
high-profile campaigns.
Most recently, Jaden Smith,
who The New York Times deemed
“The New Man in a Skirt,” played
a major part in the ad campaign
for Louis Vuitton Spring/Sum-
mer 2016. Jaden (the son of
Will and Jada Pinkett Smith for
those who may not be aware of
the power family) is someone I
find to be extremely innovative.
While he stars in the campaign
(mega cool to begin with) he’s also
causing a shift in the way we see
gender. I forgot to mention that
Jaden is not a part of the men’s
campaign. Jaden is in the Louis
Vuitton
Spring/Summer
2016
women’s campaign, and yes he
wears a skirt. Of course men have
been involved in women’s wear
campaigns before, but not one of
them has ever been dressed from
head to toe in women’s clothing.
My thoughts on this are as fol-
lows: hell yes, Jaden Smith! He
sports the skirt much better than
the other three female models
standing beside him, so honestly,
what if he wants to wear women’s
clothes? He clearly does it better
than most of us. If you’re able to
look past traditional gender roles
(which is what this campaign pro-
motes) then you’ll see that a boy
in a skirt is nothing to fret over.
Jaden is using his fame for fash-
ion in addition to representing the
change this generation is eager to
demonstrate and hastily needs.
Taking all of what I’ve said into
consideration, I have to remind
myself that these celebrities live
their lives under a magnifying
glass. They have no room for error,
unless they want it to be broad-
casted all around the world. All of
their insecurities and flaws are on
display and constantly under fire.
To me however, the pros seem to
outweigh the cons in this situa-
tion. Fine, let the people see the
awful paparazzi shots of the huge
pimple in between my eyes (which
is basically like a small planet.) As
long as I’m holding that Prada bag,
seeing my newfound high fashion
career on the horizons, I couldn’t
care less.
The good, the bad, the ugly, the
expensive and the designer are all
elements in these children’s lives.
Although I may never forgive
them for having famous parents,
which allows them to navigate life
a little more easily, I will always
love them. I will continue to stalk
all blogs, Instagrams and Twit-
ter accounts having to do with
these young and stylish stars.
Tagging my friends in the pic-
tures of famous kids with their
amazing clothes (that I am jeal-
ous of) is something I promise to
do. I swear my allegiance to wish
and work hard to one day (hope-
fully) get on their level of designer
delights.
COHEN MEDIA GROUP
Paul Dano, where is that wig from?
FILM REVIEW
STYLE NOTEBOOK
‘Hitchcock/Truffaut’
cinema geek’s dream
By LAUREN WOOD
Daily Arts Writer
In 1962, renowned French
filmmaker and icon of the
French New Wave, François
Truffaut,
sat
down
for
an
interview with the massively
popular
American
director
Alfred Hitchcock. At the time,
although most of Hitchcock’s
films were blockbuster hits,
they were generally regarded
by critics as gimmicky and
thin, their innovative suspense
techniques superficial rather
than masterful. When asked
who
his
favorite
filmmaker
was, Truffaut responded Alfred
Hitchcock, shocking his fans
and shedding a new light on
the masterful composition of
Hitchcock’s dramatic thrillers.
The subsequent conversation
between
the
two
directors
is recorded as one of the
most influential dialogues in
filmmaking history, inspiring
another
wave
of
directors
across the world.
First published as a book,
the documentary “Hitchcock/
Truffaut”
delves
into
this
conversation through the eyes
of some of the most popular
directors of today. Big names
like
Wes
Anderson
(“The
Grand
Budapest
Hotel”),
David Fincher (“Gone Girl”),
Akira
Kurosawa
(“Seven
Samurai”) and Martin Scorsese
(“Goodfellas”) claim that it was
this book that allowed them to
access filmmaking in a way that
pushed
past
entertainment,
and revealed the construction
behind
the
magic
they
witnessed
on
screen.
For
these directors, the published
transcript of this conversation
became a cinematic bible, with
shot by shot breakdowns of
Hitchcock’s most compelling
scenes
and
straightforward
dialogue regarding the most
powerful ways to engage an
audience through film. While
any conversation with Hitchock
or Truffaut would be valuable,
it’s the candid rapport between
the
two
that
makes
their
conversation so influential. As
the two try to learn from each
other, those listening are given
a direct line to learn from them
as well.
It seems almost obvious to
say that film is a visual medium,
and the careful construction
of the image is what pulls an
audience in. Looking at this
construction, the documentary
works to dismantle the notion
that to be regarded highly,
cinema
must
be
“serious,”
and must have a fully logical
framework. In many ways, this
is exactly what Hitchcock’s
films are not — the logic is shaky
and the actions overdramatized
to
the
point
of
disbelief.
However, as Scorsese notes at
one point in the documentary,
instead of appealing to realism,
Hitchcock
appealed
to
the
“spirit of realism,” an even
more powerful device that kept
audiences across the country at
the edge of their seats.
While
the
documentary
focuses on the work of Truffaut
and Hitchcock through the
eyes of today’s most famous
directors, it also inadvertently
gives us a window into the
minds
of
these
directors
at
work.
When
analyzing
Hitchcock’s pervasive religious
themes, Fincher notes that
in watching films, it can be
almost unsettling how much
we learn about the filmmaker,
their fears, their obsessions
and
their
deepest
desires.
This is a sentiment echoed by
all commentators in the film,
and reveals a facet of their
work that may have otherwise
been overlooked. Hitchcock’s
films communicate his darkest
obsessions
in
a
way
that
makes them acceptable for an
audience, and in doing this, he
gave permission to the next
generation of filmmakers to do
the same.
While
somewhat
slow
at
times,
“Hitchcock/
Truffaut” works as a largely
informational documentary. To
those interested in filmmaking,
the
in-depth
discussion
of
cinematic
technique,
the
construction of the image and
the revelatory aspects of passion
project movies is engrossing.
But,
the
documentary’s
continual references to the
large archive of Hitchcock and
Truffaut’s works could serve
to alienate those less involved,
although the pull of celebrity
gives a splash of excitement to
the otherwise informational
film. In the same way as the
original book, the documentary
stands not as art within itself,
but as inspiration for those just
as fascinated by the image as
these famous filmmakers.
6A — Monday, February 1, 2016
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com