The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Tuesday, November 22, 2016 — 5
WARNER BROS.
When boys try to mansplain the time turner to me.
“Fantastic Beasts and Where
to Find Them” is the much
anticipated prequel to the Harry
Potter
series,
centered on the
adventures of the
renowned author
Newt Scamander
(Eddie Redmayne,
“The Danish Girl”)
in his writing of the
titular
textbook
read by Harry and
the crew. It would
be easy to gush
about the Harry
Potter
universe
and the role of this film in setting
the groundwork for the future
generation, especially in regards
to Grindewald’s rise to power and
the foundation of modern magical
education. However, while fun and
creatively impressive, the film’s
failing in character depth reveals
deeper issues of the film industry’s
reliance on digital effects and
the
problematic
paradox
of
ornamental diversity.
One of the most anticipated
elements of the film is its reveal of
the wizarding world in America.
Set in post-WWII New York City,
the film integrates magical society
with the non-magical in the
traditional Harry Potter fashion.
The bulk of this work is focused
on the Magical Congress of the
United States, a Ministry-esque
government hub complete with
flying paper airplanes, magical
lifts and an infinite skyrise of
offices. “Fantastic Beasts” fails
to deliver a world as complex and
fascinating as the original, but this
is understandable given its limited
duration and the fact that it’s the
first film of its series. In particular,
in terms of the complexity and
breadth of its universe, the film
lacks that unique nostalgic tie to
the original series
and is ultimately
a faded replica of
what
fans
have
come to expect.
While
the
film
disappoints
on
setting,
it
overwhelmingly
delivers
in
its
exploration of the
world of magical
creatures – a world
that,
until
now,
has barely been skimmed. In one
pivotal scene, Newt descends into
his leather briefcase to tend to his
creatures. In this moment, the film
tests the creative imagination of its
viewers; Newt reveals the multiple
biomes present in his case, each
inhabited by a diverse spectrum
of creatures ranging from massive
to miniscule and unassuming to
terrifying. The CGI work in this
scene, while not entirely seamless,
works effectively to translate
the imagination of J.K. Rowling
and the other creative minds in
constructing an entirely new
magical facet of this universe not
seen in the books. This scene does
the bulk of the work in terms of
Newt’s character as well, as his
commitment becomes evident.
However, Newt may be the only
interesting and complex character
in the entire film. Across the board,
every character but the protagonist
lacks nuance and understandable
motivations.
Tina
(Katherine
Waterson, “Steve Jobs”) plays the
American ex-auror who both aids
and inhibits Newt; she oscillates
between a sense of duty and a desire
for adventure, landing somewhere
in the neutral and boring middle.
Jacob
Kowalski
(Dan
Fogler,
“Custody”)
is
Scamander’s
Muggle (the American term is
No-Maj) sidekick who somehow
manages to stay un-obliviated and
is kind of charming but ultimately
useless. Even the main antagonist,
Graves
(Colin
Farrell,
“True
Detective”), lacks the subtlety to
explain his desire for destructive,
uncontrollable dark magic.
This overwhelming trend in
the film reveals the formulaic
blockbuster reliance of CGI to
carry the film and subsequently
sucks the nuance from the film’s
character depth and development.
This results in one-dimensional,
uninteresting
characters
who
don’t work to challenge the
viewer’s
critical
consumption
experience. This lack of depth
is particularly salient in the
context of a modern film industry
and cultural climate that puts
emphasis on diversity within the
cast and crew. The epitome of this
intersection is seen in the Magical
Congress’ President, a female
woman of color who supposedly
has the most power but is arguably
the most accessory and useless
character in the film. Here we
see the paradox of implementing
diversity but neglecting depth;
diversity becomes ornamental and
problematic in it of itself. While
“Fantastic Beasts” delivers fans
the Harry Potter experience on
the surface, its choices in focus
reveal larger problematic trends in
film and culture.
‘Beasts’ is fun, but fails to
flesh out new characters
SYDNEY COHEN
Daily Arts Writer
Harry Potter spinoff isn’t as promising as the original films
C
“Fantastic Beasts
and Where to Find
Them”
Rave & Quality 16
Warner Bros.
The
National
Geographic
channel
rarely
misses
an
opportunity to educate the public
on recent science and research-
related
findings.
However,
the
behind their newest
“Mars” miniseries
are
interesting,
but based on a
tired
idea.
For
a
channel
made
famous for their
documentaries and
dramatizations,
“Mars”
attempts
to blend the facts
behind
NASA’s
Mars attempts with the fiction of
a backstory set in the year 2033.
However, with fact overtaking
fiction, where does “Mars” fit into
the spectrum?
The direction that “Mars” takes
is unconventional, especially for
a production on a channel that
values scientific fact over fictional
series. Seamlessly blending these
dueling concepts is a quality often
sought after in a Hollywood that
rarely gets it right. However,
tipping the scale to favor one
over the other can often produce
unfavorable results rather than
intelligent debate. As is often the
case for a science-based network,
the scale noticeably tips toward
reality over fiction. Although
science in fan favorites like “The
Martian” or the “Star Wars”
franchise may not be as genuine
or experimentally proven as in
“Mars,” they succeed in plot and
storytelling, an area in which
“Mars” needs improvement.
The
premise
of
“Mars”
entertains the idea of a human
settlement
on
the infamous red
planet, detailing
the
dangers
and
struggles
that comes with
exploration
of
the
unknown.
Although
ambitious,
“Mars”
’s
plot
noticeably
lacks
material of any
real
substance.
Even
though
a
continuous
B-roll does provide the audience
a special look into NASA’s
recent undertakings and cites
interviews
with
program
directors, the shift between
fictional
storytelling
and
actual interviews act more as a
distraction than supplemental
material.
Though one could look at
the slow pace of “Mars” as a
reprieve from the archetypical
sci-fi space mission, the lack of
any intercharacter chemistry
does not bode well for the new
miniseries. The attention to
detail is admirable, but without
any chemistry, the series is likely
to take a fatal blow to viewership.
When the scenes that take
place on the planet of the
series’ namesake finally appear,
there is a stunning lack of
quality — as if the budget was
far surpassed on B-roll alone.
Though aesthetically pleasing,
there is an element missing in
the dramatization section of the
episode which, if not worked
on, will certainly spell doom for
the Daedalus crew. The already
blurred line between fact and
fiction exponentially increases
as
the
episode
progresses,
taking the concentration of its
followers out of this world. In
addition, the running time of
the episode is punctuated by
multiple interviews with big
names, such as Elon Musk of
the “Space X” project, making
the series feels broken without
anything concrete to tie these
concepts together. If it weren’t
for Musk’s namesake, one would
find it difficult to distinguish the
line between actual and mock
interviews.
At
times,
though,
the
interviews fittingly shift between
the happenings on the shuttle
to the present because errors
predicted in 2016 occur during
the
Daedalus
mission.
But
interconnectedness is everything
and “Mars” is most certainly a
distance away from perfection.
While it’s certainly ambitious
of “Mars” to attempt to find
harmony between a documentary
and drama series, the meshing
between the two ultimately fails
to lift off.
MEGAN MITCHELL
Daily Arts Writer
NatGeo’s ‘Mars’ blends sci-fi, science
Docu-series fails to create a compelling adventure or educational program
TV REVIEW
C
“Mars”
Miniseries Premiere
Mondays at 9 p.m.
National
Geographic
Sting reopened Paris’s Bataclan
theater last Saturday — one year
after the devastating terrorist
attack there which killed 129
people — with a
moving set. Sting
first entered the
new wave music
scene almost 40
years ago, yet he
still
remains
a
go-to figure when
society
aches
for
the
healing
powers of music.
After
assuring
an
emotional
French crowd that “we won’t
forget
them,”
the
esteemed
philanthropist
performed
his
soothing 1987 hit “Fragile” along
with two tracks from his brand
new record 57th & 9th.
Clearly, an emotional year
preceded the release of Sting’s
twelfth solo album. He opened up
to NPR about its track “50,000”
which was inspired by the loss
of a handful of rock stars this
year — David Bowie, Prince
and Glen Ferry to name a few.
Their sudden deaths led Sting to
question his own mortality. “We
all are shocked irrationally when
they prove to be very mortal …
I am 65 years old, I imagine I’ve
lived most of my life already,” he
reflected.
Sixteen Grammys later, the
former frontman of The Police has
led quite the life. 57th & 9th is the
first record he has released since
his short-lived, autobiographical
Broadway show “The Last Ship”
in 2013. While this album’s
emphasis on pertinent issues like
climate change (in “One Fine
Day”) and the refugee crisis (in
“Inshallah”), the majority of 57th
delivers
a
less-than-inspiring
Sting. With occasionally over-
sentimental
lyrics,
clunky,
Broadway-like
melodies
and
an
overall
lack
of
musical
cohesiveness,
Sting’s
return
to
rock
lacks
vital
intrigue.
The record opens
with the playful,
rock ‘n’ roll-rooted
“I
Can’t
Stop
Thinking
About
You” — the single admittedly gets
catchier with repeated listens.
Sting seems to be channeling some
mid-life romantic angst here, as
the chorus drives, “I can’t stop
thinking about you, I can’t stop
wanting you this way.” It’s a little
too reminiscent of early 2000s
soft rock — specifically the ringing
guitar riffs and stagnant snare of
O.A.R.’s “Love and Memories.”
“One Fine Day” and “Pretty
Young Soldiers” bear stains of
Sting’s Broadway stint. The former
is a piano-accented, unconvincing
call to action on climate change.
He sings “Dear leaders, please do
something quick/Time is up, the
planet’s sick.” It is easy to then
envision Sting shrugging “But hey,
we’ll all be grateful/One fine day”
and ducking off stage behind a red
curtain. Furthering the theatrics,
“Pretty Young Soldier” narrates an
unoriginal military romance story,
accompanied by worn-out strums
and tired percussion.
Sting’s style eventually perks
up and diversifies in the second
half of the record. “Petrol Head”
is a gritty, driving rock ‘n’ roll
track.
Between
the
twangy
chorus, screeching guitar and
consistent cymbal smashing, it’s an
intentionally sloppy, garage-rock
rodeo.
“Heading South on The Great
North Road” simmers down into
an acoustic Celtic-sounding folk
lullaby. This familiar, worldly
ripple in Sting’s swelling vocal
melodies
and
instrumentation
is reminiscent of his far-more-
moving 1993 hit “Fields of Gold.”
“Heading South” is one of those
pleasant moments of 57th, but it is
merely that — pleasant.
The album finally surpasses
pleasant
and
delivers
both
instrumental and melodic impact
with “Inshallah.” The track’s
Arabic title translates into the
hopeful phrase “God Willing.” It is
a return to Sting’s iconic usage of
Middle Eastern musical modes, a
sound which he popularized with
his 1999 radio hit “Desert Rose.”
The deluxe edition of the record
includes a deeper, more haunting
version of “Inshallah” — Sting
recorded it with Syrian refugees
in Germany. Somberly singing
“Sea of worries, sea of fears/In
our country, only tears,” the artist
embodies that same palpable
empathy and attempt at musical
healing that led to him singing in
Paris last week.
Aside from these these rare,
affecting glimmers, inspiration
is hard to come by in 57th & 9th.
While it is one of the powerhouse’s
most unimpressive records to date,
Sting’s
unwavering
dedication
to the betterment of this often-
troubling world is as inspiring and
impressive as ever.
AVERY FRIEDMAN
For the Daily
Sting returns with crucial concerns
Rock icon’s latest less than stellar, but has good intentions at heart
C
“Sting”
57th & 9th
A&M Records
As a kid, Nickelodeon held a
special place in my heart. Almost
every night from around second
to sixth grade, I had a strict, self-
enforced routine where I would
watch “The Fairly Oddparents”
at 7 p.m. and “The Adventures of
Jimmy Neutron” at 7:30 p.m. If I
was lucky enough, I could sneak
in an episode of “Spongebob
Squarepants,” “Danny Phantom,”
“Avatar: The Last Airbender” or
whatever Nick show was playing
at eight before my mom would
eventually tell me to go to bed.
I’m not sure why I found Nick-
elodeon so alluring and why I
preferred it over Disney Channel
and Cartoon Network. I would
watch television shows on these
networks too — I absolutely loved
“That’s So Raven,” “Even Stevens,”
“Teen Titans” and “Ben 10” — but
to me, the lineup of Nickelodeon
shows was in much higher quality
at the time.
Let’s be honest: I was obsessed,
practically addicted, to watching
Nickelodeon. I lived off watching
re-runs of “Hey Arnold,” “Rocket
Power,” “The Wild Thornber-
rys,” “Rugrats” and “CatDog.” I
would watch the network’s low-
key shows too, like the sharp spy
family comedy “The X’s,” the
exemplary sci-fi series “My Life As
a Teenage Robot,” the trippy-as-
hell “Chalkzone” and the ill-fated
superhero cartoon “El Tigre: The
Adventures of Manny Rivera.” I
would even force myself to watch
the network’s crappier efforts, like
the absurdly gross “Mr. Meaty”
and the dumbfounding, poorly
animated “Tak and the Power of
Juju.”
But out of everything that Nick-
elodeon offered, one of the great-
est aspects about the network was
its accessibility to young, fresh-
faced viewers. Watching the Nick-
elodeon Kids’ Choice Awards was
also a huge thrill for me, despite
its overt silliness and excessive
celebrity appearances. One of the
greatest nights of my young life
was watching the KCAs in 2006,
hosted by a still-manic Jack Black.
My best friend Brandon and I had
a sleepover that night and watched
the entire broadcast of the show,
eating mac ‘n’ cheese and choco-
late chip cookies in between com-
mercial breaks. I don’t remember
any specific moments from the
2006 KCAs, but I recall a sense of
overwhelming happiness washing
over me throughout that night. I
wanted so badly to win a trophy in
the shape of an orange blimp and
deep down, I still kind of hope to
someday.
There was just something about
Nickelodeon that made it stand out
among the other kids program-
ming networks. In particular,
“The Fairly Oddparents” and “The
Adventures of Jimmy Neutron”
gave me a reason to keep watch-
ing Nickelodeon, with their zany
plot lines, animation, relatable
characters, intelligent storytell-
ing and witty humor. I identified
with Timmy Turner and Jimmy
Neutron, both of whom were
social outcasts but possessed
the care-free innocence that ful-
filled all my childhood fantasies.
I yearned to have fairy godpar-
ents like Cosmo and Wanda who
could grant my every wish and to
live in a place like Retroville and
invent time machines and rocket
ships as a hobby. That being said,
the two have noticeably imperfect
qualities, which were put on full
display in the incredible, crimi-
nally underrated crossover trilogy
“Jimmy Timmy Power Hour.”
Timmy was a whiny, needy
10-year-old, who would never
think about the consequences of
his wishes and how they would
affect those around him. Jimmy
was a smug know-it-all, whose
intellect often overshadowed and
alienated his best friends, the neu-
rotic Carl Wheezer and the hyper-
active Sheen Estevez. Something I
always admired about these char-
acters was their ability to learn
from their mistakes, with Timmy
following Cosmo and Wanda’s
guidance to being a more ethical
human being and Jimmy not let-
ting his ego get the better of him
when his inventions threatened
his loved ones. Sure, most episodes
followed that formula in order
for Jimmy and Timmy to achieve
some form of character develop-
ment. But subconsciously, these
episodes helped shape my own
understanding of the trials and
tribulations of life and how to deal
with challenging situations.
When I entered adolescence,
I began watching the live-action
Nick shows like “Zoey 101,”
“Drake & Josh,” “Unfabulous,”
“The Naked Brothers Band” and
“Ned’s Declassified School Sur-
vival Guide.” And as I grew older,
each of these shows continued to
provide me with the necessary
tools for living through one of
the biggest transitional periods
in my life. “Ned’s Declassified”
was especially influential for me,
preparing me for the hellish black
hole that was middle school with
helpful tips about procrastination,
bullies, failure and homework. All
the while, it also managed to tell
a funny, compelling story about
three best friends navigating
through the awkwardness of the
middle school experience.
Looking back on all those
Nickelodeon shows, I find myself
feeling strangely nostalgic and
somewhat sad that the network’s
plethora of captivating, origi-
nal content no longer resonates
in its current lineup. Since I last
watched it in 2010, “Spongebob”
has downgraded tremendously,
trading in its hilariously surreal
sequences and meta overtones for
episodes that are unfunny, bizarre
and mean-spirited. “The Fairly
Oddparents” replaced its iconic
theme song with a horrid new one
and introduced two characters
— Cosmo and Wanda’s child Poof
and some girl named Chloe — who
seem to only exist to keep the show
from going kaputt. “Jimmy Neu-
tron” ended after three remark-
able seasons, but the producers
created an unnecessary spin-off
that put Jimmy’s best friend Sheen
as the protagonist for some reason.
These Nickelodeon shows, in
addition to other old ones, are now
immortalized through the post-
modern vortex of memes. New
animated shows have taken over
and ever since “iCarly” and “Vic-
torious,” the live-action programs
have become garish and under-
whelming.
Still, I’m optimistic about the
prospects of kids television pro-
gramming. Having watched Nick-
elodeon for a number of years, I
still have hope that someday, a
young boy or girl will be inspired
to write about the shows that com-
pleted their childhood.
SAM ROSENBERG
Daily Arts Writer
My undying love for Nickelodeon
How Timmy Turner and Jimmy Neutron educated a generation
TV REVIEW
TV NOTEBOOK
FILM REVIEW