HAPPY
TUESDAY!

Classifieds

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

ACROSS
1 Pilothouse
wheels
6 Sphere in a
library
11 Cheering syllable
14 Use a broom
15 Lubricate again
16 Touchdown
approx.
17 Adjusted sales
figure on which
some royalties
are based
19 Bus. get-together
20 Gentle touch
21 Letter that opens
with a click
23 Headache
treatment
26 Concerning, on
memos
27 Seasonal bug
28 Wood-finishing
tool
33 Tennessee
senator __
Alexander
36 Zoo critter with
striped legs
37 Brass instrument
played like a
trumpet
42 “Sure, I’ll give
you a ride”
43 Sleep audibly
45 Long, narrow
mollusks
50 Hotel divs.
51 Poet Khayyám
52 Place for
meditation
55 Intense
personality
57 Response to a
clever put-down
59 Actress Hagen
60 Motto for the
cautious ... or a
hint to the starts
of 17-, 28-, 37-
and 45-Across
65 Washington
MLBer
66 Mount in Exodus
67 Lucky break
68 Genetic info
letters
69 Seagoing mil.
training group
70 Spine-tingling

DOWN
1 QVC rival
2 Baaing mom
3 Tennis do-over

4 Gracias, across
the Pyrenees
5 Hurled weapon
6 “The Heart of the
Matter” novelist
Graham
7 Hawaiian floral
rings
8 “Uh-oh!”
9 Stand-up routine
10 Besides
11 Send back, as to
a lower court
12 Clothing
13 “Marvelous”
Marvin of boxing
18 Bed with high
sides
22 Yellow
“Despicable Me”
character
23 CIO partner
24 Balkan native
25 Shoe company
with a cat in its
logo
29 Doone of Exmoor
30 Ref’s ruling
31 Retired newsman
Donaldson
32 LAPD alerts
34 1990s veep
35 Camper driver,
for short
38 And so on: Abbr.

39 Shop __ you drop
40 Par
41 Clever Bombeck
44 Contractor’s fig.
45 Portly
46 “The Joy Luck
Club” novelist
47 Mexican
revolutionary
played by Brando
48 Word before
“Pizza” or “River,”
in film

49 PlayStation maker
53 Social faux pas
54 Lots and lots
56 Part of AAA:
Abbr.
57 Point __ return
58 Qualifying race
61 __ conditioner
62 Capek’s robot
play
63 Slide down the
slopes
64 Collarless shirt

By Patti Varol
©2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
09/20/16

09/20/16

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

SEEKING PSYCHOLOGY GRADU‑
ATE student with interest/experience in 
OCD/Tourette syndrome to work as a 

home companion for a 20 year old male. 
Located in Brighton, 16‑24 hours weekly 

for $16‑20/hour. Contact Patricia 
Cagnoli, MD at (810)986‑6468 
or patriciacagnoli@gmail.com.

WWW.CARLSONPROPERTIES.‑ 

COM
734‑332‑6000

FOR RENT

HELP WANTED

6 — Tuesday, September 20, 2016
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

There’s no such thing as a 

perfect awards show. Sure, it 
might be odd to open this way in 
a review of what 
was, by and large, 
one of the best 
Emmy Awards I’ve 
ever seen, but it’s 
true. Even the most 
generous of awards 
committees 
can’t 

honor 
every 

deserving 
recipi-

ent, and that’s not 
even 
consider-

ing the sheer number of scripted 
television shows that aired in the 
past year, or taking into account 
the fact that one man’s deserving 
recipient is another man’s over-
rated trash. And then there’s the 
entirely different, but still tangen-
tially connected, train of thought 
that leads to difficult questions 
like, “Wait, why do I care about 
this?” and “Does any of this even 
matter, in the grand scheme of 
things?” So imagine my surprise 
— an apt word to describe Sun-
day’s telecast — at an Emmys that 
was satisfying, efficient and … 
kind of great?

The first sign of a pleasant 

surprise: Jimmy Kimmel was 
funny. His late-night persona 
often smacks of smug, smarmy 
comedy, but after overcoming a 
painfully unfunny pre-recorded 
intro, Kimmel was energetic, 
brisk and agreeable. (I will con-
tinue to ride for Andy Samberg’s 
performance last year as long as 
I have to — we must protect his 
ascension to Steve Carell-level 
national treasure.) The sand-
wiches stunt and predictable 
Matt Damon bit played well; 
even the introductions and one-
liners landed effectively. As one 
can only hope good hosts will do, 
he kept things moving.

And to be sure, despite FX 

and HBO’s relative dominance 
(specifically “The People vs. O.J. 
Simpson: American Crime Story” 
and “Game of Thrones”), the 
highlight of this year’s ceremony 

was how the com-
mittee found ways 
to honor the less-
er-publicized 
but 

truly worthy per-
formances, 
writ-

ing and direction. 
Louie 
Anderson’s 

win for his deeply 
odd but stunning 
performance 
on 

“Baskets” was a 

sure sign of changing, more com-
prehensive tides. Aziz Ansari 
and Alan Yang’s writing on the 
“Parents” episode on “Master 
of None” — which was, for me, a 
bit overrated — was still heart-
warming to see honored, and led 
to one of the better speeches of 
the night. And “Transparent” ’s 
Jill Soloway’s award for directing 
“Man On The Land” was a much-
deserved underdog win against 
HBO heavyweights “Veep” and 
“Silicon Valley.”

It would be difficult to talk 

about this year’s ceremony with-
out also mentioning the number 
of genuinely moving acceptance 
speeches, from Patton Oswalt’s 
short, touching shoutout to his late 
wife to Jeffrey Tambor’s under-
stated but impassioned plea for 
inclusivity to Julia Louis-Drey-
fus’s tearful tribute to her father. 
It’s weird to judge people on their 
specific brands of stunned grati-
tude, especially when they’ve just 
been judged on their actual work, 
but Rami Malek and Sarah Paul-
son deserve the unofficial Emmy 
Award for Outstanding Accep-
tance Speeches. Malek’s perfectly 
paced and delivered ode to “all 
the Elliots out there” comes sec-
ond only to Paulson’s retroactive 
and heartfelt apology to the real 
Marcia Clark.

Yes, we can complain about 

certain omissions. “The Ameri-
cans,” while finally being nomi-
nated after four seasons of thriller 
perfection, still failed to win an 
award outside of Margo Martin-
dale’s repeat Guest Actress win, 
though Malek’s win over the 
incredible Matthew Rhys is hard 
to argue with. Tatiana Maslany 
also pulled off the upset over 
Keri Russell in recognition of the 
utterly transfixing body of work 
she’s put together as a whole in 
“Orphan Black.” “Fargo,” whose 
second season was one of the 
most perfect seasons of television 
in recent memory, also went home 
empty-handed. (I’d be remiss if I 
didn’t somehow throw Bokeem 
Woodbine’s name in here some-
where, so there. That’s his name, 
and his performance in “Fargo” 
is one I’ll never forget.) And I’d 
rather not discuss the utter disre-
spect shown to “The Leftovers,” 
which is, in this writer’s opinion, 
the best show on television and 
the recipient of a whopping total 
of zero nominations.

But it’s tough to complain 

about an Emmys that awarded 
hard-working actors like Sterling 
K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance, 
finally honored the comedic bril-
liance that is “Key and Peele” and 
found “SNL” ’s first openly lesbian 
cast member, Kate McKinnon, at 
a rare loss for words. It’s an easy 
line to draw from the Emmys’ 
general air of progressive poli-
tics to the standard “TV is doing 
diversity better than movies” 
argument. It is, of course, not that 
simple. There’s still work to be 
done. Still, the 2016 Emmys were 
a heartwarming celebration of 
“Peak TV” and how much more 
is possible on television than ever 
before. As Leslie Jones put it in 
the night’s most optimistic, con-
fident and touching segment, the 
Emmys just wanted to feel beauti-
ful, y’all. 

FX

So no one told you life in jail would be this way *clap clap clap clap*

TV REVIEW

NABEEL CHOLLAMPAT

For the Daily

Jimmy Kimmel hosts a surprisingly 
successful Emmy Awards on ABC

“Game of Thrones” and “American Crime Story” win big

I

’ve always had an underly-
ing suspicion that I could be 
incredible at baseball.

Not right away, of course. But 

maybe if I trained hard for say, 
three years 
or so, I could 
be terrific. I 
could thrive 
on the lack 
of prolonged 
running, or 
indulge in 
the hilarious 
furtiveness of 
the steal. It’s 
completely 
unfounded 
in any sense 
of reality; 
the game of baseball just has a 
universality that makes even the 
most uncoordinated of litera-
ture columnists dream of major 
leagues.

Every game of baseball is a 

story, with primal, relatable 
goals and high stakes that will 
make you stop scarfing down 
peanuts for a second and watch. 
Perhaps this is why American 
literature has paid so much trib-
ute to baseball, even as baseball 
falls out of favor to more com-
plicated, hurried games.

Baseball in our current cul-

tural landscape means some-
thing much different than what 
it means on the page — today, 
the average salary for a pro 
baseball player is four million 
dollars. When my grandfather 
was invited to play for the New 
York Yankees in 1951, he turned 
it down because he had two kids 
and could make more money as a 
truck driver for a beer company.

When baseball was becom-

ing synonymous with American 
ideals, there wasn’t the absurd 
financial incentive that exists 
for ball players today. There was 
only a love of the game. But now 
even though the players are mil-
lionaires, the history of baseball 
in this country still goes deep 
enough to make it an integral 
part of American literature.

Americans have been living 

out their fantasies of baseball 
vicariously through the English 
language since the game’s inven-
tion in 1839 in New York. But the 
stories we hear are rarely basic 
stories of winning and losing 
— baseball lends itself as a meta-
phor for the human experience. 
It accepts projection of sadness, 
loss, mirth and triumph. Stories 
like Ernest Lawrence Thayer’s 
“Casey at the Bat,” which my 
father read to me when I was 
probably three or so, are incred-
ibly depressing.

Casey’s failure has become 

an unavoidable part of our cul-
ture. When he strikes out, we’ve 
become so invested it feels as 
though we ourselves have lost 
a hero. His irreversible mistake 
changes everything, stripping 
him of his identity and the 
people of his town of joy. We’re 
so willing to allow events to be 
representative of ourselves and 
our lives, which is why this story 
is so devastating — we either are 
or have been the disappointed 
citizens of Mudville.

Stories about baseball, like 

the 2011 novel “The Art of Field-
ing,” are also often subtly about 
the way we struggle and become 
ourselves. In Chad Harbach’s 
book, we meet Henry Skrim-
shander as a freshman at the 
fictional Westish College. For 
his entire life, Henry has been 
an almost magical, zero-error 
shortstop, defining himself 
through the game of baseball. 
But like “Casey at the Bat,” 
standing with the weight of the 

world on his shoulders, the crux 
of the story comes when Henry 
must learn how to deal with fail-
ure and disappointment. 

The rest of the characters’ 

lives in the novel also revolve 
around the world of baseball 
in the extremely small bubble 
of Westish College. Henry’s 
cultivated and confident room-
mate, Owen, has a preternatural 
understanding of the physical-
ity of the game. However, their 
gruff mentor, Schwartz, cannot 
match the ease of movement 
with which Owen and Henry 
play. The characters’ relation-
ship to the game is constantly 
reflected in their relationships 
and time outside of it. “The Art 
of Fielding” sees baseball and 
human existence as relatively 
analogous, like most litera-
ture that finds itself baseball-
inclined.

I was at a minor league base-

ball game in Maine this summer, 
cheering on the Portland Sea 
Dogs against the Hartford Yard 
Goats. Children dressed up as 
condiments and raced across 
the field — mustard won. The air 
smelled of French fries and fresh-
ly cut grass and I ate a hot dog 
wrapped conspicuously in Won-
der Bread. Looking at the men 
nonchalantly rounding the bases, 
I rudely announced to the group 
I was with that they weren’t 
even running that fast and that 
I could probably do that. I tuned 
out the announcer describing the 
local hardware store that had 
sponsored the game and thought 
about the poem “Baseball” by 
Linda Pasten.

“When you tried to tell me / 

baseball was a metaphor / for 
life: the long, dusty travail / 
around the bases, for instance, / 
to try to go home again...I didn’t 
believe you. / It’s just a way of 
passing / the time, I said. / And 
you said: that’s it. / Yes.”

Lerner is in a league of 

her own. To try and join, 

email rebler@umich.edu.

The stories of 

America’s pastime

LITERATURE COLUMN

FILM REVIEW

It’s no secret that Ira Sachs 

(“Love is Strange”) has a gift 
for emotional realism. Never 
has 
that 
been 

more 
apparent 

than in his lat-
est film, “Little 
Men,” which fol-
lows 
the 
bud-

ding 
friendship 

between 
Tony 

Calvelli 
(new-

comer Michael Barbieri) and 
Jake Jardine (newcomer Theo 
Taplitz). The two meet at Jake’s 
grandfather’s funeral — Tony’s 
mom owns the store beneath 
the grandfather’s apartment — 
and instantly become insepa-
rable.

The friendship is treated 

with a patience rarely seen in 
film. The young men are given 
plenty of screen time to just be 
together. Long shots of the two 
rollerblading, sitting, stand-
ing, walking and doing almost 
anything else thirteen-year-
old boys do in silence follow 
most scenes of dialogue. Those 
stretches of silence are perhaps 
the film’s strongest moments. 
Sachs shows what friendship 
looks like without letting the 
audience in on its secrets and 

specificities.

This gentle treatment of 

adolescence extends to all the 
children in the film. The kids 
in Tony and Jake’s acting class 
pulse with the same level of 

realism. 
In 
an 

especially lifelike 
(and very funny) 
moment, one of 
the 
girls 
tells 

Tony that she’s 
really “into older 
guys” 
when 
he 

asks her to dance. 

These small celebrations of the 
everyday are what make the 
film as realistic and powerful 
as it is.

The film misses out every 

moment that it chooses not to 
spend with its two young leads. 
The parallel plot of the squab-
ble between the Jardines and 
Leonor (Paulina García, “Glo-
ria”), Tony’s mother, is not only 
less compelling, it’s poorly exe-
cuted. Brian, Jake’s father, is 
played unconvincingly by resi-
dent indie dad Greg Kinnear 
(“Little Miss Sunshine”). He 
and Lenore (Paulina Garcia, 
“Narcos”) navigate a legal mess 
with a lack of passion that bor-
ders on boredom. This dryness 
is only made more apparent 
when compared to the pure 
vitality that threatens to break 

through the screen whenever 
either of their sons are on cam-
era.

As fate would have it, the two 

little men are not allowed to be 
best friends forever. Towards 
the end of the film, the parental 
subplot takes over. Rents and 
voices are raised, and Lenore 
must close up her shop. With-
out the common ground of the 
store, the boys drift away from 
each other. 

The boys’ breakup itself is 

raw and heartbreaking — never 
more so than when Jake tries to 
rollerblade back to Manhattan. 
But its power and poignancy 
is undercut by the slog of legal 
narrative required to reach that 
moment.

Keeping with the trend of 

Sachs’s other films, a gay sub-
text could be detected in Jake 
and 
Tony’s 
friendship. 
But 

keeping in the reality of the 
simultaneous 
sexuality 
and 

sexlessness of thirteen-year-
olds, the film decides to hint 
rather than commit — and it’s 
better for that choice. 

Characterized by the most 

realistic and poignant repre-
sentations of adolescence in 
recent history, Sachs’s film is a 
beautiful ode to the everyday. 
It’s just a shame “Little Men” 
isn’t only about its little men.

MADELEINE GAUDIN

Daily Arts Writer

‘Little Men’ ponders male friendship

B

“Little Men”

Magnolia Pictures

Michigan Theater

TV RECAP

REBECCA 
LERNER

A-

68th Primetime 
Emmy Awards

ABC

Aired Sunday, Sept. 

18
Every game 
of baseball is 
a story with 

relatable goals.

