Classifieds
Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com
ACROSS
1 Home for Pogo
6 Affirmative
answer
9 Silences, as a
TV
14 Artist’s prop
15 Pie __ mode
16 Wagnerian work
17 “Farewell,
chérie”
18 CBS forensic
drama
19 Antianxiety
drug
20 “Bro, I thought
you were gonna
help”
23 Many a GI
24 Jerry Garcia’s
band, familiarly
28 Socializing with
the queen,
maybe
31 Avril Lavigne’s
“Sk8er __”
32 Bullets and such
33 Lots and lots
35 Accessories for
the highchair set
36 Decide in
advance
37 Gonzalez boy in
2000 headlines
39 Look at
lasciviously
40 Hourly charge
41 “I expected as
much”
43 “... __ saw Elba”
44 Owns
45 More like a
button?
46 Is really boiling
48 Reggae kin
49 Follow the ethical
path
55 Set to simmer, as
a burner
58 Spanish eye
59 Sag
60 Southern
inflection
61 Looking sickly
62 Novelist Zola
63 Suddenly occurs
to, with “on”
64 Computer
program suffix
65 Went out with
DOWN
1 Close securely
2 Stroll in the
shallows
3 “Yeah, sure!”
4 Track event
5 Made fluffy, as
pillows
6 Millionaire’s boat
7 “Frozen” princess
8 Minnesota
college named for
Norway’s patron
9 Spunk
10 Moving around
11 Morning break
hour
12 Historical period
13 Classic doo-wop
horn
21 Slip past
22 Phone button
letters next to a 4
25 Political fugitive
26 One strolling
27 Medicine
measures
28 Harshly bright
29 Perfectly
30 “You’re talking
too loud”
31 Puts the worm on
33 __-ski
34 Sewing machine
inventor
38 Shaving mishaps
42 Covered, as in a
man-to-man
defense
44 Axe
47 Coyote cries
48 Rosetta __
50 “Stronger than
dirt!” cleanser
51 “Joy of Cooking”
writer Rombauer
52 __ alone: have
no help
53 Putting target
54 Adorned with
Angel Soft, say
55 Like every other
number
56 Food service
trade org.
57 Attorney’s field
By Sam Buchbinder
©2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/04/16
10/04/16
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
RELEASE DATE– Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
xwordeditor@aol.com
BABYSITTER NEEDED
Two energetic 10‑yr‑old boys
email: sgronewold@gmail.com
ARBOR PROPERTIES
Award‑Winning Rentals in Kerrytown,
Central Campus, Old West Side,
Burns Park. Now Renting for 2017.
734‑649‑8637. www.arborprops.com
WWW.CARLSONPROPERTIES.-
COM
734‑332‑6000
FOR RENT
HELP WANTED
6 — Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
ANN ARBOR’S HOTTEST CLUB
IS DAILY ARTS.
WE’VE GOT EVERYTHING:
CHEESE PARTIES, VAPID
FASHIONISTAS, DEVOUT JEWS.
YOU DON’T EVEN NEED A
FAKE ID.
Email ajtheis@umich.edu and
katjacqu@umich edu for information
on applying to Daily Arts.
Love him or hate him, Woody
Allen has always had a sharp,
observational eye on the human
condition.
His
classic
works
like
“Annie
Hall” and “Man-
hattan”
dem-
onstrated
his
cynical yet allur-
ing
worldview,
and it was fur-
ther
ingrained
through
his
hallmark
fea-
tures — neurotic
characters,
bit-
ing
dialogue
and
thought-
provoking rumi-
nations on existentialism and
love. But since the early 2000s,
Allen’s filmography has fluc-
tuated from compelling (“Blue
Jasmine,” “Match Point” and
“Midnight in Paris”) to mid-
dling (“Irrational Man,” “Magic
in the Moonlight” and “To
Rome with Love”).
Despite
the
80-year-old
writer-director’s tireless work
ethic, his recent offerings sug-
gest his stories are getting
tired and formulaic, which is
particularly evident in Allen’s
newest light comedy, “Crisis in
Six Scenes.” The fact that Allen
regretted making a television
show in the first place says a lot
about how poorly “Crisis in Six
Scenes” is executed.
Some witty lines and warm
visuals notwithstanding, “Cri-
sis in Six Scenes” is a familiar,
dull and slow-paced affair in
Allen’s late-period canon. What
could have easily been a stage
play or a decent full-length film
is instead a show comprised of
six uninspired episodes filled
with excessive, dialogue-heavy
sequences, lackluster camera-
work and grating performances.
Once again playing his trifec-
ta role as writer, director and
lead actor, Allen plays anxious
novelist Sidney J. Munsinger,
another one of his broadly
stroked protagonists that could
have been witty in the ’70s, but
is simply an annoying kvetcher
now. It’s no surprise that Allen
hasn’t performed that well on
the acting side, as the last criti-
cally acclaimed piece he starred
in was his 1996
musical
comedy
“Everyone Says I
Love You.” Luckily,
he gets help from
his talented co-star
Elaine May (“Small
Time
Crooks”),
who
delivers
a
standout
perfor-
mance as his loving
marriage therapist
wife Kay.
The elderly, mid-
dle-class
couple
shares a comfort-
able living space
during the socially turbulent era
of the 1960s, but suddenly gets
an unexpected visit from peace-
loving, leftist fugitive Lennie
Dale (Miley Cyrus, “Hannah
Montana”). Hijinks ensue, and
by hijinks, I mean lots and lots
of senseless rambling from Sid-
ney about how his life has been
turned upside down because of
Lennie’s presence.
In a sense, the plot has poten-
tial to work as a microcosm
reflecting the various societal
crises and political polariza-
tion of the 1960s and today, but
it lacks the tenacity and depth
to explore such topics. Lennie’s
abrupt arrival sparks a chain of
events and discussions about
FBI
surveillance,
consumer-
ism and the moral decay of the
Vietnam War with Sidney and
among Kay’s all-white female
book club. However, the results
are somehow less than stimulat-
ing.
The conversations between
these
characters
may
seem
somewhat intriguing on paper,
but seeing them play out is
exhausting and dull to watch.
Cyrus is an especially bad
choice to play Lennie, deliver-
ing each line with a stilted, awk-
ward cadence. Her acting was
never really a highlight in the
first place, and her performance
comes off as sitcom-y, remi-
niscent of her Disney Channel
days.
The other cast members do
their best with what they’re
given, but it’s easy to tell that
they’re also struggling under
the weight of Allen’s script.
“Orange is the New Black” ’s
John Magaro certainly brings
the energy as Alan Brockman,
the conservative-turned-woke
son of Sidney’s family friend,
but
his
exaggerated
recita-
tion of almost every one of his
lines is cringe-worthy to watch.
Stand-up comedian Bobby Slay-
ton plays Sidney’s frustrated
acquaintance, Mel, using the
best of his brash, intense come-
dic style to fuel a meandering
sequence between him and
Sidney in episode three. One
of the only significantly witty
scenes involves Lewis Black
(“Inside Out”) and Becky Ann
Baker (“Girls”), playing two of
Kay’s patients who literally hate
everything about one another,
but share a distaste for guaca-
mole.
“Crisis in Six Scenes” could
have served as Allen’s calling
card from film to television, but
the series is a creative failure on
all fronts. The long-held sexual
abuse allegations against Allen,
as well as his questionable mar-
riage to his ex-stepdaughter,
don’t make watching his mate-
rial any easier, either. There’s
definitely some charm and wit
left in Allen, but considering
how the man has become hit-
or-miss in the past few years,
his days of being one of the most
acclaimed, notable directors of
Hollywood seem to be winding
down.
AMAZON VIDEO
“Give me the ‘Alleged Pedophile’ cut.”
SAM ROSENBERG
Daily Arts Writer
‘Crisis in Six Scenes’ proves that
Woody Allen’s schtick is getting old
New Amazon series would have been a lot wittier in the ’70s
C-
“Crisis in Six
Scenes”
Series Premiere
(first 3 episodes
watched)
Amazon Video
All Episodes
Available to Stream
TV REVIEW
M
y Norton Anthol-
ogy of Theory and
Criticism gets a lot
of attention, much more than
any of my other accessories. If
you’re look-
ing for people
to gasp and
ask what
you’re doing
with such an
obnoxiously
large book,
I would rec-
ommend it.
As usual, the
five-pound
anthology
garnered the friendly concern of
the person I was talking to — in
this case, one of my English pro-
fessors. I mentioned that in my
literary theory class, we were
starting with New Criticism. I
rolled my eyes and he responded
with an audible groan at the
Formalist movement that domi-
nated 20th-century analysis.
New Criticism is unpopular.
It’s not as French as deconstruc-
tion, not as relevant as gender
and queer theory and nowhere
near as sexy as Marxism. One of
its key components, close read-
ing, can be an arduous and over-
used pedagogical tool. Because
the things that we have learned
from it are so easy to take for
granted, we often discount it.
But as I delve further into a
world in which the insanity of
the outside bleeds into the text,
I can understand a case for a
text as a self-contained object.
Could the scientific nature of
New Criticism have a place in
today’s literary world?
Quite possibly. The trials of
our current age hold concrete
parallels to those of the era
of New Criticism. The move-
ment arose as a dismissal of a
superficial version of romanti-
cism and subjectivism. In “The
Intentional Fallacy” and “The
Affective Fallacy,” William K.
Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley
argue that both the author and
the readers should be excluded
from the scene. They operate
on the premise that the creator
is not in their right mind — that
they are fundamentally unreli-
able because writing is akin to a
sort of possession. The theorists
assert that the author’s “inten-
tion” should not be considered
and as readers, we shouldn’t
conflate our emotional respons-
es with the meaning of the text.
I love a good authorial inter-
view, where they reveal some
hidden meaning in a book and
entirely enlighten the experi-
ence of reading. But a biography
can weigh down a text with
the pressure of expectations.
When I extensively read Emily
Dickinson this summer, I
could vividly picture her — I’d
been to her house in Amherst
and listened to a tour describ-
ing her life. I had stood in the
room where she died, secretly
touched the chairs in her broth-
er’s house next door. So now it
feels annoyingly hard to read a
Dickinson poem and not see the
homoerotic undertones, not pre-
tentiously nod and say, “Clearly,
this is about her secret longing
for her mean-but-hot sister-in-
law, Susan.”
But when I read Louise Gluck
for the first time this summer,
it was completely different. At
the New England Literature
Program, without the ability to
stalk her online or learn about
her life, I could fully immerse
myself. I dove into lines like
“We have come too far together
toward the end now/to fear the
end. These nights, I am no lon-
ger even certain I know what
the end means. And you, who’ve
been with a man— /after the first
cries /doesn’t joy, like fear, make
no sound?” Without worrying
about Gluck herself and who
she was talking to or thinking
about, I could actually appreciate
the melody and meaning of her
words.
There’s a beautiful argu-
ment in New Criticism against
gut reactions to a piece of work.
Emotionality seems to dominate
the English class discussions of
today. The words “I think” and “I
just feel like” are more prevalent
than references to the actual text.
I’m not prepared to say that the
feelings that a piece evokes aren’t
important, but I disagree with
the valuation of a reaction over
analysis. If anyone is looking for
bold statements, I am prepared to
say people who overuse the word
“interesting” in analytical classes
should be expelled with only a
copy of the Norton Anthology of
Theory and Criticism to remind
them of their time here.
In “The Death of the Author,”
Barthes states that writing
becomes a neutral space where
the subject slips away, meaning
that no “person” is saying this.
But to give a text an author is to
impose a limit on it. There’s so
much pressure to “have a voice,”
to be “authentic” in your writ-
ing. New Critics felt that authors
could have different voices over
different texts, meaning that
the volatility of the self could be
reflected in an author’s work.
In some ways, the author is cre-
ated by the text instead of the
other way around. An author
is not consistent across texts
and should not be expected to
be. If we give it a chance, a text
can speak for itself without any
author pushing their own neuro-
ses between the lines.
Lerner is secretly longing for her
mean-but-hot sister-in-law. If this
is you, email rebler@umich.edu.
Let’s kill the author
once again
Does New Criticism have a place on the modern bookshelf?
LITERATURE COLUMN
REBECCA
LERNER
“Crisis in Six
Scenes” is a
creative failure on
all fronts.
There’s a beautiful
argument in New
Criticism against
gut reactions.