The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, January 4, 2017 — 5A

Classifieds

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

ACROSS
1 “Scrubs” nurse
married to Dr.
Turk
6 Suddenly
became attentive
11 Letter addition
letters
14 They may be
gray
15 Make one of many
16 __ polloi
17 Brown bread
18 Files in a recycle
bin
20 Gathering for
February’s big
game
22 Exploit
23 Flooring choice
24 Irish lullaby
syllables
26 Colombia
neighbor
28 Lead-in for jet or
prop
32 Gritty genre
33 Second of three
O’s
35 Job rights agcy.
37 Adobe file format
38 George
Washington
never slept there
42 Singer Carly __
Jepsen
43 Sainted fifth-
century pope
44 Novelist Deighton
45 Publication sales
fig.
47 1983 60-Down
winner Tom
49 Siouan tribe
53 Big aluminum
producer
55 Yale Blue wearer
57 Took cover
58 Heavenly
protectors
63 Fleeting affair
64 “The Maltese
Falcon” actor
Peter
65 French season
66 Pianist Watts
67 Bubbling hot
68 Director
Anderson
69 Seven-__ cake
70 What 20-, 38-
and 58-Across
have in common

DOWN
1 Takeout packet
2 Stir to action
3 One with a sickle
4 Operate using a
beam
5 Houston pro
6 Daily paper logic
puzzle
7 From the
beginning
8 Dough drawer
9 Sch. near the Rio
Grande
10 Iris part
11 Occasions that
usually elicit big
smiles
12 Fair activity for
kids
13 One of the fam
19 Waffle maker
21 Baker’s units
25 “Walk me!”
27 4 x 4, briefly
29 Tighten, as laces
30 Nectar eater
31 French “Wowza!”
34 Leather punch
36 Miler Sebastian
38 Follow too closely
39 Mythical hero
with a labor
force?

40 Electrified
particle
41 Colorful card
game
42 LG rival
46 Early steam
engine fuel
48 Facade
50 Charlize of
“Monster”
51 Coastal fuel
extractor
52 1950s disasters

54 Easy-to-read
font
56 Marriage
acquisition
59 Perfumery
that created
Tabu
60 200-lap race,
briefly
61 43,560 square
feet
62 Asian desert
63 Grass coating

By Ed Sessa
©2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
01/04/17

01/04/17

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

2017‑2018 LEASING
Apartments Going Fast!
Prime Student Housing
761‑8000. www.primesh.com
Efficiencies:
344 S. Division $855
610 S. Forest $870 ‑ 1 Left
1 Bedrooms:
326 E. Madison $1045 ‑ 1 Left
511 Hoover $1045/$1065
508 Division $945
*Varies by location: Full Furnished,
Parking Included, Free Ethernet

FOR RENT

There
are
few
things

that
manifest
holiday

spirit as much as baking,
especially
homebaking.

From
gingerbread
cookies

to Christmas puddings and
everything in between, there’s
no lack of sweet treats to
satisfy our holiday cravings.
What could be as good as
indulging in the miscellany
of baked goods that emerge
during this festive season?
Watching an assorted crop
of talented amateur bakers
demonstrate
their
holiday

spirit in “The Great British
Bake-Off” tent.

For those unfamiliar with

“GBBO,”
the

UK competition
show
pits

various
homebakers
against
one

another
to

determine
the
best

among
them.

Hosted by the
charming
Mel

Giedroyc
and

Sue
Perkins,

both
English

comedians, and judged by
cookbook author Mary Berry
(come on, it doesn’t get more
festive than a name like that)
and professional baker Paul
Hollywood, the series serves
up great fun.

Paul
and
Mary
don

Christmas
sweaters
in

preparation
to
judge

competitors
from
previous

seasons
who
return
for

another shot at culinary glory
in the series finale which aired
in two parts, “Christmas Day”
and “Boxing Day.” In a series of
three challenges — signature,
technical and showstopper —
the bakers must impress the
judges with their creativity
and skill.

While aided by the judges’

instructions in the technical
challenges
and
their
own

recipes in the others, there’s
no shortage of setbacks for
the aspiring bakers who fight
against the clock and their
own
inexperience
in
the

kitchen. But both the judges
and hosts reassure the uneasy
contestants as they make their

rounds early in each challenge
and prod each contestant to
explain their plans of action.
Mel and Sue even spur them
on with good-natured words
of encouragement — though
at times contestants find them
distracting (for instance when
Part One competitor Mary-
Anne attempted to repel Sue’s
insistent hug).

The special hits a sweet

spot
between
sentimental

and
spectacle,
showcasing

the
fusion
of
personality

and
passion
in
culinary

achievement.
While
the

homebakers stumble at times
under the strain of competition,
they push forward with their
past experience and cheerful
sportsmanship to carry them
through.

What the show lacks in

suspense
and

excitement
it

makes up for in
sheer
geniality

and insight into
the
minds
of

homebakers
—

with a delightful
representation
of
various
UK

sweets
and

pastries to keep
us glued to the
action on screen.

With
the

variety of contestants, there is
a great diversity in the talent
showcased. Some contestants
call back to their roots using
flavors to embolden otherwise
traditional recipes. Veering
towards
the

more
“exotic”

is
typically

rewarded
by

the
judges

who like to see
personality
shine through
in the fare they
sample.

The judges —

who are more
than
willing

to dole out praise to the eager
competitors, especially given
their histories on the show
— don’t hesitate to criticize
where some more constructive
feedback is due.

And the judges certainly

know what they’re talking
about — clarifying some of
the more daunting methods
involved
in
the
technical

challenges to audiences at
home prior to the challenges

commencing.
To
those

unfamiliar
with
baking

technique, explanation of the
precise
methods
required

of the contestants can be
illuminating, or it can be a
slightly
dulling
exposition

taking up airtime. Regardless,
we’re made to feel a little more
like experts watching from
home.

The competition is handled

with
as
much
care
and

delicacy as the the challenges
themselves. As the bakers
strive to knead the perfect
dough and achieve the right
balance
of
flavors,
they

interact freely with the judges
and hosts who encourage them
with animated commentary.

Each contestant’s competing

items are introduced with
mouth-watering illustrations
accompanied by the hosts’
descriptions of them. Though
the contestants are expected
to execute each challenge with
precision and deftness given
time they have to prepare
beforehand, some are overly
ambitious. One contestant’s
gingerbread
tiers
collapse

on
themselves
during
the

showstopper in Part Two,
while
another
mistakes

flour for powdered sugar,
making for unconventionally
disgusting icing.

Though
we
follow
the

contestants through success
and disappointment, the nature
of watching amateurs trying
to impress a panel of kind,
yet imposing judges carries

strength
in

its
hint
of

emotional
suspense
—
one
that

is
rather

different from
the excitement
we’re
used
to
on

professional
cooking
competitions.

Only one contestant can

take home the winning title,
however
everyone
leaves

the
tent
in
good
spirits,

exuding contagious positivity.
While the pros make it look
easy,
watching
“GBBO”

veterans attempt three tier
masterpieces and inventive
cookie
decorations
simply

for the fun of it is the most
rewarding of all.










BBC ONE

Every other picture on their Facebook was just cookies.

SHIR AVINADAV

Daily Arts Writer

“Great British Bake Off”
serves up holiday cheer










Warner Brothers

Go back Bel Air

If someone were to see a trailer

for the movie “Collateral Beauty,”
they would probably assume that
it’s a realistic fantasy film about a
man coping with his daughter’s
death by having conversations
with Death, Time and Love. This
is not true. To disclose the real
plot would almost be a spoiler in
and of itself, so it has to be left
at this: “Collateral Beauty” is a
movie about awful
people doing awful
things to a man
for awful reasons.
That
somehow

only manages to
scratch the surface
of what is wrong
with this film.

Even if one were

able to get past
this facade for the
sake
of
getting

an
audience
it

wouldn’t
get

otherwise, the rest of “Collateral
Beauty”
hardly
does
itself

any favors. The last act of this
film packs in two of the most
spectacularly ill-advised twists
in recent memory. A good twist
is hinted at throughout the movie
but still hard to see coming.
It contributes added depth to
additional viewings. There is
none of this in “Collateral Beauty”
because to even hint at these

twists would push the movie
into the realm of unintentional
comedy,
and
director
David

Frankel
(“The
Devil
Wears

Prada”) wisely decided to save
that for the third act, presumably
to minimize audience walkouts.

The lazy and/or nonsensical

plotting
might
have
been

forgivable or at least overlooked if
there were likeable characters to
latch on to, but as was mentioned
before, there’s none of that
either. Contrary to what the
trailers and posters may have

implied, the movie
doesn’t
center

around
Howard

(Will
Smith,

“Men
in
Black”)

as much as it does
his friends, Whit
(Edward
Norton,

“Birdman”), Simon
(Michael
Peña,

“The
Martian”)

and Claire (Kate
Winslet,
“Steve

Jobs”). “Collateral
Beauty” desperately

wants its audience to believe that
these people are Howard’s best
friends and that they care about
his wellbeing, but every action
they make says otherwise. What
arcs they have are cliché, bland,
and unfocused, so even when
they aren’t unlikeable, they’re
simply boring.

None of the blame for this can

be said to rest on the all-star cast,
though. Will Smith absolutely

shines as Howard in a movie that
doesn’t deserve him. The scene-
stealer here, though, is without
a doubt Helen Mirren (“Eye in
the Sky”), who was cast as the
physical manifestation of Death
in a stroke of casting genius. Her
scenes are never as touching and
poignant as the movie thinks they
are, but they’re at least something
approaching funny, and Mirren
manages to add wit and likability
to her part which is more than
can be said for the rest of the
characters. Everyone on screen
is doing their best, but they can’t
save this script.

Ultimately, the biggest problem

that “Collateral Beauty” faces
is that it truly thinks it is saying
something different. It thinks it is
a work of genius that will be used
for years to come to help grieving
parents.
Nothing
could
be

further from the truth. Whether
the fault lies with Frankel or
screenwriter Allan Loeb (“The
Switch”), the movie they have
created together mostly peddles
the
same
overly
sentimental

messages that movies like this
usually do. The difference here is
that the combination of repellent
characters and laughter-inducing
twists are borderline offensive
to those who have lost a child.
Based on its cast, “Collateral
Beauty” could have and should
have been the exemplification
of the “touching holiday movie.”
Instead, it settles for being some
of the worst the genre has to offer.

JEREMIAH VANDERHELM

Daily Arts Writer

B+

“Great British Bake-

Off”

Parts 1 & 2

BBC

D+

“Collateral Beauty”

Rave, Quality

Warner Bros.

Pictures

The special hits a
sweet spot between
sentimentality and

spectacle

DO YOU NEED TO JUMPSTART

YOUR CAR? WE’LL SAY WE

CAN HELP, BUT ACTUALLY FAIL

MISERABLY.

Interested in applying to Daily Arts? E-mail us at npzak@umich.

edu or anay@umich.edu for an application and a nifty car tip.

“Collateral” is the worst

TV REVIEW
FILM REVIEW