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