The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Monday, November 28, 2016 — 5A
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
@michigandaily
NOW.
Classifieds
Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com
ACROSS
1 “Get lost!’
6 Google __:
geographical app
10 Ruth with bats
14 Egypt’s capital
15 They may clash
on a movie set
16 Environmental sci.
17 *Power source
that plugs into a
computer port
19 Physics particle
20 Andes, e.g.:
Abbr.
21 Against
22 Make amends
(for)
23 *“Airplane!” flight
number, to the
control tower
26 Boats with
double-bladed
paddles
29 Forget to include
30 Mosque leader
31 Address for
Bovary
33 Having one flat,
musically
36 *Carl Icahn or
Michael Milken
40 Billy the __
41 Father or son
New York
governor
42 Head, to Henri
43 Suffix with joke or
pun
44 Gratify
46 *Castle gate-
busting weapon
51 Going on, to
Sherlock
52 Lily pad squatter
53 Sock hop site
56 “The Mod Squad”
cop
57 Home of the
player at the
ends of the
answers to
starred clues
60 Actor Estrada
61 Be complicit in,
as a caper
62 Giraffe kin
63 Exec’s asst.
64 TiVo
predecessors
65 Jotted down
DOWN
1 Film on stagnant
water
2 Film credits list
3 Barbecue fare
4 Smile shape
5 Iroquoian people,
or a hair style
named for them
6 Fred or Ethel of
old TV
7 Texas A&M
athlete
8 19th-century
master of the
macabre
9 Old Rus. state
10 “Get lost!”
11 Follow, as a tip
12 Trailblazing
Daniel
13 Roundheaded
Fudd
18 Yucatán years
22 Jungian inner
self
23 Pack (down)
24 Calf-roping event
25 Poet Khayyám
26 Punt or field goal
27 Mine, to Marcel
28 One of 100
between end
zones
31 Native New
Zealander
32 Source of quick
cash, briefly
33 Brainstorm
34 Butterfly catchers
35 For nothing
37 Eight-musician
group
38 Regretful sort
39 Bulleted list entry
43 Heavyset
44 Plum’s title in
Clue, briefly
45 Blue or black
water of filmdom
46 Hay bundles
47 Burning
48 Mixer with gin
49 Player
referenced in
57-Across’ clue,
briefly
50 Southern side dish
53 Tiny biting insect
54 “Eek!”
55 Hotel room cleaner
57 Cleveland cager,
for short
58 “Easy as” letters
59 Old studio letters
By Jake Braun
©2016 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
11/28/16
11/28/16
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
RELEASE DATE– Monday, November 28, 2016
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
xwordeditor@aol.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
811 S. DIVISION 4 bedrooms, 1 bath,
parking, laundry, $2200/month. Available
Fall 2017. dklemptner@comcast.net
! 2 RENTALS LEFT ‑ BEST DEAL !
! NORTH CAMPUS 1‑2 Bdrm. !
! Riverfront/Heat/Water/Parking. !
! www.HRPAA.com !
FALL 2017 HOUSES
# Beds Location Rent
4 827 Brookwood $2900
2 935 S. Division $2100
Tenants pay all utilities.
Showings scheduled M‑F 10‑3
24 hour notice required.
CAPPO/DEINCO
734‑996‑1991
CARLSONPROPERTIES
.COM
734‑332‑6000
2017‑2018 LEASING
Apartments Going Fast!
Prime Student Housing
761‑8000. www.primesh.com
Efficiencies:
344 S. Division $835/$855
610 S. Forest $870
1 Bedrooms:
726 S. State $1135
326 E. Madison $1045/$1065
511 Hoover $1045/$1065
508 Division $945
*Varies
by
location:
Full
Furnished,
Park‑
ing Included, Free Ethernet
FOR RENT
COMMUNITY CULTURE NOTEBOOK
A couple of weekends ago you
might have noticed a host of well-
dressed people streaming down
the sidewalks in the vicinity of
the intersection between North
University Avenue and South
Thayer Street. Or perhaps, if
you drive, you might have found
yourself bumper-to-bumper in
the sort of traffic jam normally
reserved for game day. Either was
rather likely, and the occasion
was something which hadn’t
happened since 2009 — the Berlin
Philharmonic was in town.
My guess would be that it took
around $81,000 to bring them
across the ocean, given the price of
airfare and the number of people.
Tack on the expense of organizing
everything, the negotiation with
venues, the booking of hotels, the
food, the chartering of busses
and it doubtlessly amounts to a
small fortune. In the end it must
have been profitable, I suppose,
but whoever managed it must
have been a logistical mastermind
with Herculean endurance, and
I wouldn’t want their job for the
world. Which is to say I’m really
glad that someone did it, because
the result of all that effort was a
fantastic experience for thousands
of people.
As a bit of background, the Berlin
Philharmonic is widely considered
to be one of the top four or five
orchestras in the world, competing
with the likes of the London and
Vienna Symphonies. So to say that I
was excited when it was announced
they would be coming to Ann Arbor
is an understatement. I bought
my ticket well in advance, and
looked forward to it all semester
and all of the summer before that.
I even spent a few days in Berlin in
August, and while there declined
to seek out any performances that
might be happening, in anticipation
of the Ann Arbor concert.
It
certainly
wasn’t
a
disappointment.
Berlin’s
reputation is well deserved, and
the direction of Simon Rattle was
stellar. I might even go so far as
to say it was the best orchestral
performance I had ever witnessed,
and I’ve seen a fair few. Throughout
the concert, the ensemble of over
a hundred musicians played as if
one. Every gesture was shaped
together, each stream of sound
perfectly balanced against the
others. And the sounds they made
were marvelous. The sweeping
motions of the strings felt as if
they were lifting you off the floor,
and when the brass section played
with all their might you felt it
reverberating in your bones.
Aside from awe at the orchestra’s
technique,
the
performance
also left me with a few thoughts.
The program I watched was in
two parts: the second half was
Brahms Symphony No. 2, a fairly
conventional
orchestral
choice
(and a personal milestone —
I’ve now seen all the Brahms
symphonies live), and the first half
was a non-stop performance of
music by Schoenberg, Webern and
Berg, collectively known as the
Second Viennese School. This was
not a conventional choice. In fact,
I’m fairly certain that until Berlin
I had never attended an orchestral
concert with music by any of those
three, let alone all of them on one
program. And in a word, I was
thrilled — though not everyone
agrees with my ecstasy.
I think I might be in the
minority in this, but I love atonal
music. While most people feel that
it’s ugly, weird and just all around
unpleasant to hear, I find it to be
beautiful, colorful, expressive and
liberating. And when you think of
atonalism, it’s the three composers
of the Second Viennese School
who immediately come to mind.
Partially
because
Schoenberg
“invented” atonality, he and his
pupils Webern and Bern are
inextricably bound-up with it, but
since that trio there have been
countless composers who followed
their footsteps, the atonal aesthetic
coming to be the primary feature
of 20th century Modernist music.
Many of them have influenced
the way that I work and think as a
composer, so to hear the original
atonal masters was a valuable
experience.
After the concert I overheard
many of the conversations going
on around me. Many of them went
something like this: “I wasn’t
really sure about the first half,
but the Brahms made it all worth
it.” I found a similar sentiment
expressed
throughout
the
comment section of the University
Musical Society website. And I
understand why people might
feel that way. I don’t agree with
them, but there was a time when
I might have, and it’s not my place
to say someone’s musical taste
is wrong. Coming to love atonal
music was a long process, hours
upon hours spent listening as I
slowly started to understand the
syntax and unlearned many of
the assumptions I had about what
music was. That’s not necessarily
for everyone, but that is what
everyone heard at the Berlin
concert, which is why I find
Maestro Rattle’s choice to include
this music endlessly fascinating.
What should be included in an
orchestra’s
repertoire?
Whose
opinions should carry the most
weight when deciding? On the
one hand, part of an orchestra’s
role is to “entertain,” so to speak.
When someone goes home after
an evening at the symphony it’s
generally
assumed
that
they
should have had a good time.
It follows that the tastes of the
audience
should
bear
upon
the
programming
decisions.
But orchestras also serve as
champions of the arts. They
should, ideally, expose people to
types of music they have never
really experienced, and promote
works both by living composers
and from periods that are less
popular. In addition to providing
enjoyment, they should challenge
their listeners. The latter role
might even be more important.
The classics and sure-fire hits
don’t need championing — they’re
already ensconced in our culture.
At the end of everything, an
approach like the one Rattle
took is probably the best. Mixing
the
tried-and-true
with
the
unconventional
on
the
same
program ensures balance. Ears
searching for old favorites and
exciting new worlds are both
appeased. And by putting the
Second Viennese School on a
major program, it goes a long way
towards normalizing them, and
making them seem less new. Not
that there’s any rush — the last of
the three only died 65 years ago,
after all.
DAYTON HARE
Daily Arts Writer
My love for the Berlin Philharmonic
Their performance in Ann Arbor solidified their top-notch status
“The Eric Andre Show” is TV’s
hardest sell. Sure, it airs on Fridays
at midnight on the adult-oriented
version of Cartoon Network — and
that sentence alone has surely
already lost me a few readers —
but I’m so ardent in my “Ranch!”
fervor that it’s a wonder my
proselytizing hasn’t gotten me
blocked from multiple contacts.
Yet, despite innumerable pleas
to friends, family and coworkers,
my conversion rate is dispiritingly
low.
I can’t say I’m surprised.
Eric
André’s
(“Man
Seeking
Woman”)
underappreciated
series, which recently completed
its fourth season, is a collection
of compact, 12-minute bursts of
pure, unbridled energy. It is (at the
risk of using up all my adjectives
too
early)
at
once
explicit,
uncomfortable, hilarious, graphic,
deadpan,
raunchy,
disgusting,
absurdist,
ironic,
awkward,
progressive, horrifying, manic and
the televised embodiment of WTF.
It is, in one word, a miracle.
Ostensibly a parody of public
access talk shows, “The Eric
Andre Show” is the brainchild of
the irrepressibly insane comedian
whose name — and sensibility —
it bears. Each episode features
André as the odd, insecure host
of a late-night show alongside
comedian
Hannibal
Buress
(“Broad City”), who literally does
nothing more than stand on the
side of the set and chime in with
random asides. The title sequence
features a live band, and then
André subsequently tackling the
drummer of said live band, as
well as destroying his purposely
cheap-looking set, on every single
episode. And guests — many
of whom simply have no idea
what they’ve signed up for — are
subjected to “interviews” that are
abruptly spliced between on-the-
street segments.
That’s about as much formal
structure as the show cares to
have;
beyond
this,
anything
goes. Prerecorded segments are
YouTube-ready,
hidden-camera
sketches
that
transgress
the
boundaries of comfort and good
taste and, in some cases, the law.
A few personal favorites: the
aforementioned recurring series,
“Ranch It Up,” in which our host
spouts non sequiturs borne of
an untethered writers’ room to
passersby on the street before
chugging a bottle of Hidden
Valley Ranch; one in which André,
covered in cereal and adorned
with a dog collar, moans to subway
passengers that he “did not,
unfortunately, get the job at the
Froot Loops factory” and proceeds
to pour milk all over his crying face;
another subway sketch in which
André, dressed as a mailman
and rocking Heelys, begins to rip
apart letters and fake mail to the
horror of people nearby, all the
while screaming “I HATE MAIL!
I HATE MAIL!” and ending
with a lovely performance of the
pan flute; and the crown jewel, a
recurring sketch called “Bird Up!”
that, in one episode, inexplicably
ends with André, in a neon-green
super suit and a toy bird glued to
his shoulder, fingering the mouth
of a woman on the street while
repeatedly chanting the phrase,
“YAH BOOBAY.” Yes, I know what
you’re thinking — 126 years of
editorial freedom, all culminating
in that sentence.
Celebrity
interviews
are
similarly odd. André’s stated
mission is to make his guests
as uncomfortable as possible.
And by extension that means his
viewers, too. Just as the camera
often jarringly cuts to Buress
doing
something
incredibly
stupid, like screaming into a bite
of a Hot Pocket, we are often
treated to the most intimate,
awkward and discomfiting of
host-guest interactions. André
alternately cranks the heat up
on his set to sweltering levels,
places cockroaches underneath
his guests’ seat cushion, literally
flashes Seth Rogen or, in one
notorious sequence, prompts a
genuinely heated walkout from
Lauren Conrad after eating fake
vomit from his desk.
The series’ comedic sensibility
borders on nihilism, and it is
the medium’s most fully formed
simulacrum of utter anarchy. And
in between moments of complete
disgust, you realize that there’s
much more brains behind the art.
It’s entirely plausible to detect,
in André’s show, a scathing
critique of the concept of modern
American celebrity, or a cleverly
disguised satire of racial politics
in late-night television. And that
subtext belies André’s prodigious
perceptiveness and intelligence
—
something
not
normally
associated with a show so devoted
to lowbrow dick jokes and 420
references.
If the static sameness of
late-night
television
is
the
unquestioned norm, then “The
Eric Andre Show” is here to
detonate the status quo with
a brashness that veers toward
hyper-masculine arrogance, but
is nonetheless revolutionary. Since
their inception, talk shows have
been constructed to mitigate the
masses, to cast the widest net
and reel in the largest audience
by substituting inoffensiveness
where dissidence might be more
potent. This show isn’t interested
in that.
A Berklee College of Music
graduate,
André
toys
with
conventions like the “in-house
band” in ways that are ostensibly
base but slyly subversive. The host,
who traded in the stand up bass
for stand up comedy less than a
decade ago, is more concerned
with in-your-face humor than
the air of smugness that often
permeates shows like “The Daily
Show” and “Last Week Tonight.”
His influences are less Johnny
Carson and more “Space Ghost
Coast to Coast”; the show operates
like an absurdist’s pastiche of
“Jackass,” “Da Ali G Show” and
Tyler, The Creator’s short-lived
“Loiter Squad.”
And while there’s much to
deconstruct, there exists the
timeless
pleasure
of
simply
appreciating a show willing to
traffic in comedy that is at once
gleefully tasteless and legitimately
boundary-pushing.
I find it difficult, however,
to write about this marvel of a
series and capture the distinct
and exhilarating experience of
actually watching it. To put it
bluntly, this is the only show not
named “Veep” currently on air that
can elicit sincere tears of laughter
in the solitary confinement of my
bedroom.
So while the arbiters of good
taste might deem “The Eric Andre
Show” too niche for a mainstream
audience, I bristle. That’s a fair
characterization, sure, but it also
misses the point. “The Eric Andre
Show” is brilliant, uncomfortable
and proudly, defiantly not for
everyone. I plan to keep watching.
‘Andre’ is glorified WTF
NABEEL CHOLLOMPAT
Daily Arts Writer
Off-beat Adult Swim staple is supremely underrated TV
A slow movie may not have
the action or pacing to keep an
audience’s attention, but there is
always something to
keep them invested,
be
it
character
or
performance.
Director
Robert
Zemeckis
(“Back
to the Future”) has
done well with this
type of movie in the
past; “Cast Away”
and “Flight,” both
slow moving character pieces,
rank among his best work. His
newest film, “Allied,” is a different
story. During the first half, it offers
the viewer next to nothing to
invest in, and by the time it gets the
story rolling in hour two, it’s nearly
too late.
Not all of these failings can
be blamed on Zemeckis, because
the script from Steven Knight
(“Peaky Blinders”) is at least
partially accountable as well.
For the first half of the movie,
scene after scene passes without
making any significant progress
in the development of character
or plot. It seems to be biding time
until something exciting finally
happens at the end of the first
act. At this point, the characters
would ordinarily be holding the
film together, but neither of them
are all that engaging. They’re both
shown to be competent spies, but
that alone isn’t enough to capture
one’s attention and hold it for any
amount of time.
Some of the blame also has to
go to the performers, in particular
Brad Pitt (“Fight Club”), who plays
Max Vatan. It’s
something of an
understatement
to call Pitt a “good
actor,” and he has
improved
with
age — as his turns
in
“Inglorious
Basterds,”
“Moneyball” and
“The Tree of Life”
can attest. It’s hard to say what his
problem is in “Allied,” but he comes
across as flat for the bulk of the
runtime. Even at Max Vatan’s most
emotional, most intense moments,
he seems almost incapable of
emoting beyond slightly raising
his voice or pouting. It’s telling
that his best moment on screen is
a scene in which he shuffles a deck
of cards in magnificently over-the-
top fashion.
That blame doesn’t necessarily
extend to the entire cast though.
Marion Cotillard (“Inception”)
gives a layered performance as
Marianne Beauséjour once the
script gives her something to work
with, and is unarguably the best,
most interesting part of the movie.
The script calls for her to be
potentially duplicitous, yet likable
enough that the viewer roots for
her to be truthful, and she walks
the line with ease. Jared Harris
(“Mad Men”) doesn’t get as much
screen time in his supporting role
as Max’s commanding officer, but
even he adds more humanity and
emotion to the affair than Pitt.
To the movie’s credit, “Allied”
does
get
progressively
more
interesting as the story comes
together. As Max begins to look
into
the
accusations
levelled
against his wife, the viewer is
forced, to a certain extent, to put
themselves in his shoes. It’s hard
at that point not to feel a little
sympathy for him, even if he is
the least fascinating part of the
ordeal. Zemeckis even manages
to draw out the suspense in a
couple scenes; a sequence taking
place under the cover of dark in
a French jailhouse is particularly
memorable for its intensity.
It’s ultimately sad that that
same intensity — or at least level
of engagement — did not spread
to the rest of “Allied.” It clearly
holds the markers of greatness.
Zemeckis has directed some of the
most iconic films ever made, Pitt
and Cotillard are both spellbinding
when they’re operating at the top
of their game and Knight proved
with “Locke” that the man can
write a minimalist script with
the best of them. Here, much
of that talent feels squandered.
“Allied” isn’t a complete loss, as
it does slowly become an above-
average romantic thriller near
its climax, but it is certainly a
disappointment.
JEREMIAH VANDERHELM
Daily Arts Writer
Historical war drama ‘Allied’ holds
streaks of greatness, but disappoints
Newest film from director Robert Zemeckis is both slow and boring
C+
“Allied”
Rave & Quality 16
Paramount Pictures
FILM REVIEW
TV NOTEBOOK