The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
the b-side
Thursday, February 2, 2017 — 5B
Our problem is that we really
don’t listen to one another.
We are in stuck in a period
of tension, conflicting views,
fear, confusion — a product of
merging different perspectives
and different struggles, all while
trying to find some common
ground. Yet, so often we choose
not to listen. It is not only in the
form of ignoring the collective
plea surrounding the major
problems facing our world, but
it is that most of us are aware
of the weight of those topics.
This inability to listen emerges
in our everyday interactions
with one another. That is, not
solely in the topics evoking high
levels of sensitivity that are
covered on the news, but almost
anything that could possible
cause a differing of opinion.
A conversation that begins
something like this:
“I love the winter so much,
the snow is beautiful,” says the
girl sitting next to me in lecture,
while she looks out the window.
I’ve
instantly
stopped
listening. I don’t agree. I hate
the winter with all my heart
and constantly ask myself how
I’ve survived living in Michigan
my entire life. Her opinion has
not only provoked me to want
to express my own, but also,
has encouraged me to ignore
whatever she has said about
the “beauty” of the snow. I’m
aware she’s speaking about why
she loves the winter, but I have
drowned the sound of her voice
with the booming sound of my
own thoughts about just how
wrong I think she is.
I have purposely chosen quite
a superficial example, not for
the sake of belittling my point,
but instead to display that our
tendencies to avoid listening
to one another transfer into all
facets of life, whether important
or not.
We listen for maybe a few
words in, but the minute we
hear something that sounds
just a little off from what we
think, we rarely keep listening.
This happens all the time. The
professor raises a question,
hands go up in response and
someone takes it upon himself
or herself to share something
that opposes the thoughts I
have.Our inability to listen has
actually become the reason as
to why conflicting views cannot
be bridged in some way and
why we’ve left very little room
for compromise within our
community. Our instinct is to
say: “I have found the fault” or
“I don’t agree.” The girl sitting
next to me loves the winter and
I hate it, so we cannot go on to
speak about things
in
the
same
way.
Because
we
don’t
think the same way.
Well, we’re going
to spend our entire
lives trying to find
people who do.
If
my
mind
could
stay
in
the
conversation just a
bit longer to listen,
I might realize that
the girl who loves the winter
might have a memory attached
to this season or maybe has
never experienced snow before
college or maybe doesn’t easily
feel cold, like I do all months of
the year.
Don’t get me wrong, the
problem is not that we have
different
opinions
from
one another. That’s entirely
inevitable, and if you’re just
realizing that now, maybe you
need to become more observant
of the way the world functions.
If
differing
opinions
won’t
change in our lifetimes, what
will is our response to them.
Ingrained in me is a habit of
shutting out others’ thoughts
simply
because
I
want to respond with
an
objection
that
reflects my personal
opinion, convincing
everyone that I am,
in fact, right.
My parents have
always
told
me:
“Bailey,
you
have
to
start
listening
to
people
around
you. You will miss
so much if you don’t.” For
the amount of time I spend
defending myself in opposition
to
a
point
someone
raises
against me, I could spend the
time listening to what someone
had said. If I let the girl who
loves winter tell me why, I could
have waited to explain to her
why I hate it.
Mutual
understanding
—
it’s something rare I think
we’ve lost. Instead of trying to
consider what position people
may be coming from, I am so
fixated on my own. That doesn’t
mean someone’s opinion has to
sway you to the “other” side.
It is more a way of developing
confirmation
toward
why
you have come to your own
conclusion, while also making
an effort to meet the other
person halfway.
Winter is the worst season
according to me and maybe
many others. I could probably
find and present research on
the multitude of health benefits
attached to other seasons or
attack the amount of illnesses
that circulate in the winter
compared to other times of year.
There are various ways to prove
a point is correct, but that’s not
my objective.
It’s the process of getting
there that matters. I always tell
people: “We all only listen to
what we want to hear.”
Justice
Sonia
Sotomayor
spoke at Hill Auditorium this
past Monday and she shared
that during her first year as
an undergraduate student at
Princeton, she listened. She
met many people, with many
backgrounds that were entirely
different than her own. And
she listened. Beyond just being
attentive, she really heard them.
Today, she is so influential in
the public sphere and can use
her voice to project her beliefs
to the public. She took the time
early on to listen in order to
develop a voice that projects
such value and wisdom.
If we just spent a little more
time listening to people and
truly hearing what they have to
say, our responses to divergent
views would probably be more
appropriate. If you really want
to find a platform for your voice
to be heard, you must first listen
to others around you. We live in
a world of opinionated people,
who are passionate about many
things. In order to express your
view, especially if you’re trying
to say it is “right,” you have to
hear what the other side says.
Otherwise, how do you really
know they are wrong?
A long, long time ago – in 2012
– Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington)
was “handling” D.C.’s scandals
in a white power suit, rigging a
presidential election and having
a secret, steamy affair with the
President of the United States.
Normal “Scandal” things. 2017,
however, has proven to be no
time for normal. With explosions,
a murder (gasp!) and political
inconsistencies galore, the sixth
season premiere of the Shondaland
drama
returned
without
any
intention
of
reining
in
the
ridiculousness.
“Scandal” made no attempt
to hide its political leanings last
season, as a parody of Donald
Trump emerged in the form of
sleazy oil-tycoon Hollis Doyle
(Gregg Henry, “Gilmore Girls”).
The stabs were anything but
subtle, as the fictionalized nominee
hopeful portrayed all-too-familiar
characteristics of unsubstantiated
candidness,
an
affinity
for
corruption and an unfortunate
hair-do. Furthermore, the episode
where fake-Trump is booted out
of the running for the Republican
nomination by ex-First Lady and
senator Mellie Grant (Bellamy
Young, “The Freebie”) is called
“Trump Card,” just in case there
was any ambiguity.
This agenda comes as no
surprise. Creator Shonda Rhimes,
along with her three TGIT leading
ladies Kerry Washington, Viola
Davis (“How To Get Away With
Murder”)
and
Ellen
Pompeo
(“Grey’s Anatomy”), released a
powerful endorsement for Hillary
Clinton in the spring of 2016. But
the “Scandal” cast claims to be
leaving real-world politics behind
as the sixth season promises to
carry a different tune. With the first
five episodes of the season filmed
before the November elections, the
narrative will be a counterpoint,
rather than a parallel, to the
current political outcome, Rhimes
told the Hollywood Reporter.
Perhaps it’s better this way,
for politics was never “Scandal”
‘s
strong
suit.
Instead,
the
series turns its focus to telling a
compelling story and churning
out some goddam entertaining
drama. Season six opens in the
final moments of the presidential
election between Mellie Grant
and the Democratic nominee
Frankie Vargas (Ricardo Chavira,
“Desperate Housewives”). The
deciding state of the race – of all
places – comes down to California.
Irritating political paradoxes
aside, Rhimes is a master of
building
compelling
female
protagonists. Only a handful of
shows in recent memory have
been able to pull off a character
arc as drastic and fulfilling as the
one portrayed in Mellie Grant.
The once-detestable, scorned First
Lady bitterly standing in the way
of Olivia and Fitz’s star-crossed
love affair has gradually – and
surprisingly – transformed into
the most relatable character on the
show. Earlier seasons chipped away
at the ice queen with trauma: a tub
of fried chicken and moonshine
in hand, Mellie’s narrative as a
mother mourning the loss of her
son was heartbreaking and, for
once, completely believable.
But,
ultimately,
building
complexity through pity is not the
Shondaland style. Rather, strong
women are formed when they rise
in spite of adversity, and Mellie is
the ultimate badass. Facing the
setbacks that come with being a
woman in politics to dumping the
POTUS for her own shot at the
oval office is ballsy, to say the least.
She’s strong, flawed and wildly
interesting. In a landmark fifth-
season episode, Mellie filibusters
against the defunding of Planned
Parenthood (even though she’s a
Republican, but we’ll let it slide).
She,
perhaps
single-handedly,
embodies the kind of optimistic,
fictionalized politics that make
“Scandal” different from the rest of
T.V.’s D.C.-based dramas.
This season also promises a
continuation of the unlikely –
yet totally amazing – friendship
blooming between Olivia and
Mellie. Both screwed over by the
same guy and willing to go to any
lengths for control of the White
House, the duo stole the best
scene of the season six premiere:
commiserating in style, they drink
champagne in a marble bathtub.
Once you get passed the fuzzy
politics and the occasional bouts of
cringe-y writing, the sixth season
premiere of “Scandal” delivered
on the over-the-top theatrics we
all knew to expect. Although the
episode was (unfortunately) devoid
of angsty side-eyes and hot-and-
heavy make out sessions in White
House closets, it was nevertheless
entertaining. Olivia Pope is finally
back, this time with a ginormous
red prada bag covering up her the
actress’s baby bump, handling
business as usual.
DANIELLE YACOBSON
Daily TV/New Media Editor
Politics flop but show still
shines in new ‘Scandal’
Scandal’s sixth season remains uncertain, but is deserting political roots
ABC
Kerry Washington as Olivia Pope in “Scandal”
She’s nobody’s ‘Fair
Lady’ but her own lady
Daily Arts Writer Eli Rallo recounts her experience watching a
reboot of the ‘Pygmalion’ classic through a modern feminist lens
Over the summer, I had
the
honor
of
seeing
the
musical “My Fair Lady” at the
Baystreet Regional Theatre in
Sag Harbor, N.Y. I brought a
hesitancy with me as I went to
see the golden age Broadway
musical for the second time
in my 18 years. I carried with
me an aversion to the show’s
portrayal of feminist issues,
misogyny and the weak view
of women it creates.
Eliza
Doolittle,
the
protagonist,
is
a
cockney
flower girl taken in by the
extravagant Henry Higgins,
who bets he can turn Eliza
into a “proper lady” in six
months. Higgins successfully
transforms
Eliza
through
misogynistic and tiring tactics
which diminish her personality
and qualities, ladylike or not.
Higgins celebrates his success
selfishly, completely leaving
Eliza out. This leads to the
creation
of
her
polemical
argument against Higgins at
the end of act two. Despite
Eliza’s anger, the show ends
with a reconciliation of sorts
between the two. The end
begs the audience to accept
that Higgins is a decent guy,
disregarding everything he
did to Eliza throughout the
musicaland poses her as rather
weak.
Somehow, in the production
I saw this summer, director
Michael
Arden
(Director
of the Broadway revival of
“Spring
Awakening”
2015)
was able to take the original
text and completely transform
its
meaning.
Through
stylistic choices (the use of
set, thrust style staging and
mood blocking) and a tweak
of
that
infamous
ending
scene, the show transformed
from the story of a glorified
misogynist
being
forgiven
for his wrongdoings to that
of a woman going through a
terribly oppressive time and
walking away from it stronger.
The show ends with Higgins
alone on the stage while the
cast stripped his entire home
away from him until the stage
was bare. Eliza appears in the
doorway, takes one look at him
and defiantly turns the other
way.
I wonder a lot about the
implications of these classic
golden
age
musicals
on
society.
Pieces
of
theatre
like “Oklahoma,” “Carousel,”
“Kiss Me Kate,” “The King
and I,” “Damn Yankees,” are
all well-known, continuously
produced pieces from that era.
Yet they all harbor undertones
of
misogyny
and
aren’t
successful in providing the
view today’s female audience
needs. Each miserably fail
the “Bechdel Test”–– a test
created
by
artist
Alison
Bechdel to monitor the role
of women in film and theatre.
A piece passes the test if it
includes a scene between two
women in which they discuss
something other than a man. It
is appalling that these pieces of
theatre, and countless others,
cannot include dynamic roles
for women.
One could argue that the
1950s, the time in which most
golden age theatre premiered
on the great white way, are
to blame. Being a decade
of
massive
oppression
for
minority groups and women,
it is inevitable that the theatre
of the time would reflect such
injustices.
There is something very
relevant and important about
the material Arden adopted
and how he was able to
transform it into something
strikingly
different
from
the original piece without
changing the text at all. The
piece provided hope for the
musical theatre I’d like to see
in 2017: less reliant on the
strong, central male figure
and
more
poised
to
give
women an empowering role in
a time during which they were
objectified and pushed down.
COMMUNITY CULTURE COLUMN
BAILEY
KADIAN
If we only stopped to listen
BAY STREET THEATER
Modern adaptation of “My Fair Lady”
I wonder a lot about
the implications of
these classic golden
age musicals on
society
ELI RALLO
Daily Arts Writer
Opinions and ideas often lost to missing ears as Kadian describes in this week’s column
Building complexity
through pity is not
the Shondaland style