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

