5 — Thursday, March 15, 2018
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
A film headlined by some
central relationship — be it
two friends or two lovers —
will often contain two very
important
components:
A
character who is a giver and one
who is a taker. The former of the
pair puts more of themselves
into the relationship, leaving
themselves more at risk to
see their efforts unrequited;
the latter lives far more aloof
to their partner’s dedication,
enabled
yet
unaware
of
their own assumed apathy.
Structuring a relationship this
way creates a slew of attractive
dynamics between the two
onscreen:
Will
the
taker
realize their selfishness and
give something back? Will the
giver ever become so fed up as
to opt out? When the credits
roll, what will be the status of
the relationship between the
two?
Writer/Director
Corey
Finley’s
debut
film
“Thoroughbreds” goes a long
way to turn these standards
on their head, playing off of
how
his
main
characters’
relationship is expected to
advance
and
reach
some
interesting areas. The film
follows
two
New
England
teens, the preppie protagonist
Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy, “The
Witch” and “Split”) and her
sociopathic sidekick Amanda
(Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl
and the Dying Girl”), as they
execute
a
murderous
plot
against
Lily’s
hated
step-
father. Finley builds up Lily
and Amanda’s relationship to
one climactic sequence where
the two girls must decide what
they mean to each other, and
what they mean to themselves.
This great sequence features
more
than
one
surprising
character twist that forces
the audience to redefine the
lines drawn in the sand, the
separation of sanity and a once-
temporary
temper
tantrum
no longer so clear. There
are about 10 minutes where
“Thoroughbreds”
is
great.
Sadly, that is as much praise as
can be given to the film. Apart
from the penultimate scene, it
isn’t worth the watch.
Which is disappointing more
because of what is onscreen
than what is not. There are the
makings of a new-classic teen
drama, but its poor pacing and
misplaced dedication to an
unnecessary horse motif get
in the way. “Thoroughbreds”
lacks narrative direction for
far too long. The interesting
part of the film, when two
rich teenagers plan to murder
one of their family members,
isn’t
committed
to
until
the film is halfway into the
second act. It dwells too long
on Lily and Amanda’s sparse,
uninteresting
back
stories
and
possible
moments
of
disingenuous
behavior
for
too long, not leaving enough
time for what the audience
bought tickets to see. Cooke’s
character especially has some
issues. The Patrick Bateman-
esque teen explains, minutes
into
the
exposition,
her
analysts’ difficulty classifying
her, practically giving her a
new diagnosis at the end of
every session. This is way
overdone.
The
character
acts
mildly
sociopathic
throughout the film, yet the
movie acts as though she is
the most insane character to
ever grace the silver screen.
Amanda’s
character
flaws
are a microcosm of a larger
problem
“Thoroughbreds”
seems to have — it distrusts
its
audience
to
the
point
of failure, over explaining
instead of allowing brevity to
pack a punch. The harrowing
climax
mentioned
above
hits with dampened impact
because it’s succeeded by 10
more minutes of unnecessary
fluff, turning what would have
been a fantastic finale into a
wasted penultimate sequence
that screams bloody murder:
“WHAT
COULD
HAVE
BEEN?”
Adding
insult
to
injury,
“Thoroughbreds”
is
technically superb. It seems
to take heavy influence from
Iñárritu’s “Birdman” in both
its cinematography and its
simple,
percussion
based
score. Finley’s tendency to
gravitate toward long, tracking
takes probably comes from his
background as a playwright;
some of the moments in the
film feel almost made for the
stage. Apart from maybe a tiny
bit of overacting from the leads
in their first scene together, the
performances were impressive
as well. “Thoroughbreds” had
the potential to set the world
on fire; instead, it will slip
past the box office into early
cycle
irrelevance
until
it’s
either inexplicably chosen by
the spoon-throwing public as
a cult classic, or until Finley
returns to try again.
‘Thoroughbreds’ could
have been a cult classic
STEPHEN SATARINO
Daily Arts Writer
FILM REVIEW
FOCUS FEATURES
“Thoroughbreds”
Focus Features
State Theater, Rave
Theaters
This past week, I attended
the
Michigan
Youth
Ensemble’s concert at Hill
Auditorium.
The
Michigan
Youth
Symphony
Orchestra
opened their portion of the
concert with Michael Abels’s
“Global Warming,” a short,
eight-minute work for full
orchestra.
It
was
a
slow,
poignant piece full of haunting
lyricism — certainly not what
I expected of a piece about
global warming.
Abels’s piece, it turns out, is
not about global warming or
anything relating to climate
change.
He
composed
the
piece in 1991, intending the
title to denote a warming
of relations among separate
cultures
throughout
the
globe. On his website, Abels
describes the piece as “folk-
like
melodies
of
disparate
cultures ... interwoven into a
dazzling musical tapestry.” It
is about the global warming of
relations, not the gradual rise
in temperature throughout the
planet. Though confusing to
modern audiences, this title
can be quite easily explained
when
one
considers
the
historical context.
The
phrase
“global
warming”
first
came
into
use in scientific literature
during the mid-’80s. It did not
become part of the American
vernacular
until
the
late
’90s or early 2000s. Many
etymologists, in fact, point
to Al Gore’s efforts during
his vice presidency and his
presidential campaign to raise
awareness of climate change
as the driving force behind
the introduction of “global
warming” into the everyday
American vernacular.
Not only did the phrase
“global
warming”
have
a
different meaning when Abels
set about writing his piece,
in all likelihood, it did not
have any significant meaning
to most Americans. Abels’s
intention for the title of the
piece, it seems, was to bring
together two familiar concepts
(the
interconnectedness
of
our modern “global” culture
and
the
“warming”
of
relations between cultures)
in an unfamiliar linguistic
and
musical
context.
Our
present understanding of this
phrase, however, leads us to
interpret the piece in new and
unintended ways — during the
performance, I struggled to
separate my feelings about the
current politics around climate
related global warming from
my understanding of the piece.
While this 20-year semantic
shift may seem radical, shifts
in meaning (and connotative
meaning) of works of art occur
all the time. Our propensity
towards constant redefinition
inevitably
challenges
the
permanent
and
significant
meaning that we attach to
titles. Questions of original
intent on the part of the creator
and interpretative license on
the part of the performer occur
all the time, and while we
may not always be cognizant
of these questions, they exist
below the surface of many
great works of art.
Numerous
words
and
phrases
in
Shakespeare’s
great ouvre, for example, are
understood quite differently
today in comparison to their
initial,
intended
meaning.
My favorite is “the world’s
mine
oyster”
from
“The
Merry Wives of Windsor.”
This phrase appears in the
dialogue
between
Falstaff
and Pistol towards the middle
of Act II. In modern times,
we
interpret
this
phrase
as a statement about one’s
potential and the treasures in
front of one’s fingertips. In the
play, however, Pistol qualifies
the meaning of the phrase by
vowing he will open this oyster
“with sword.” Though modern
audiences
may
interpret
this phrase as a harmless or
even positive expression of
potential, Pistol uses it as a
threat as to the violence he
is willing to perpetrate to
achieve his goals.
Another
example
of
semantic shift is Nietzsche’s
concept of the “übermensch”
in his early works. In this
instance, however, it is politics,
and not widespread linguistic
usage, that has obscured the
original meaning of this word.
When Nietzsche first used the
phrase “übermensch,” he used
it to describe a hypothetical
higher state of man based not
on religion but on atheistic
moral
principles.
During
the Nazi regime, however,
this
phrase
was
used
to
describe the supposed racial
superiority of the Aryan race.
For a long time after the fall
of the Nazi regime, this word
was ostracized for its racist
political
connotations.
In
the modern era, however, we
have returned this word to its
original, Nietzschean meaning
—
recent
scholarship
has
provoked debate around what
was once a clear consensus
regarding
Nietzsche’s
anti-
Semitic beliefs.
Many semantic shifts around
historical figures and pieces
of art also inevitably taint
their modern interpretation.
We can never know the full
extent to which we interpret
art differently than its creator
intended us to. While many
historical fallacies exist, a few
widespread
misconceptions
come to mind.
Michelangelo’s “The Last
Judgement,”
for
example,
is
usually
assumed
to
be
among
his
best
works,
if
not one of the best religious
works in the Western canon.
Historically,
however,
the
work has undergone a radical
critical transformation during
its lifetime. While it is now
immensely popular, it was
controversoal and condemned
upon
its
unveiling.
Many
prominent Catholic officials
criticized its many naked forms
— students of Michelangelo
were eventually asked to add
loin cloths to the work. The
religious implications of the
work have also undergone a
radical transformation; though
it was criticized at the time of
its unveiling for its portrayal
of
nakedness,
“The
Last
Judgement” is now an iconic
part of the Sistine Chapel and
the larger Holy See.
Another
famous
example
of
widespread
historical
misconception is the life and
career of Wolfgang Amadeus
Mozart. Much of the modern
mysticism
around
Mozart’s
life stems from the movie
“Amadeus.” As in the movie,
many
people
assume
that
Mozart died poor and largely
forgotten; while some of his
operas may have been popular,
he was largely forgotten or
neglected at the time of his
death. However, during his
lifetime, he was a popular and
sophisticated composer. He
was famous throughout his
lifetime both for his skills at the
keyboard and as a composer.
He was frequently brought to
the royal court to play before
the leaders of Europe — while
he may not have been as rich
as our modern-day musical
celebrities,
he
was
never
destitute or forgotten.
These
semantic
shifts
have irrevocably altered our
understanding of artists and
artwork.
If
anything,
the
rate of these semantic shifts
seem to be increasing as the
internet allows for widespread
misconceptions to spread as
never before. While we may
assume art to be independent
of these changing semantics,
it is important that we all
approach art with our own
prejudices.
Though
these
prejudices
may be both founded and
unfounded, they are almost
always detrimental to full
appreciation. And though we
may assume artwork to exist
in the past, our interpretations
of art are illusive and ever-
changing.
Eventually,
we
must accept the imperfection
in our understanding of art.
While we may strive to be
as historically accurate as
possible in this understanding,
we must acknowledge that we
can never be perfect. When we
look at a painting we also look
into a mirror; both the painting
and
our
understanding
of
how we should interpret the
painting appear in front of
us. While this prohibits us
from ever making tautological
statements about artwork, it
also allows us to interact with
art over and over again. And
while it is the most confusing
aspect of art, it is also the most
beautiful.
Art, reinterpreted
DAILY COMMUNITY CULTURE COLUMN
SAMMY
SUSSMAN
COMMUNITY CULTURE REVIEW
A momentum inside of me
pushes on — internalized —
continuing the push-and-pull
game that the international
dance
duo
Wang
Ramirez
started
with
this
past
weekend at the Power Center.
An
exploration
of
physical
limitations, social boundaries
and
human
relationships
ensued as the group took over
the stage. I left not only inspired
to fulfill a lost dream of learning
to dance, but also to explore the
corners of my mind. Through
movement, the group created a
dialogue on the boundaries and
limitations both created by and
imposed onto us.
Hip hop, aerial rigging, ballet
and martial arts fused together
to
create
a
breathtakingly
virtuosic
and
electrifyingly
poetic
production.
Wang
Ramirez
have
pushed
the
boundaries of what dance is
through their style and, in
doing so, have harnessed a
power unattainable in classic
form. The dancers started off
by moving in and out of the
silhouettes of two big silver
cubes, experimenting with their
physical relation to the shape.
Throughout the performance,
they pushed the audience to do
the same with the cages built
around us — to both consider
and challenge social norms and
the extent of our own freedoms.
Without the need to satisfy the
expectations that come with
one style, Wang Ramirez were
unfiltered in movement, obeying
only the human body while also
pushing the limits of their own
physicality. With a new freedom
in style and multiple dimensions
in movement, the group begged
the audience to explore the
magnitudes of body and mind.
Solos were generally watched
by the rest of their dancers,
breaking
down
the
barrier
between what it meant to be a
A funky exploration in
movement and thought
ISABEL FRYE
Daily Arts Writer
performer and what it meant
to be an audience member. A
dialogue between two dancers
midway through and bits of
humor spread throughout the
performance
further
broke
down the barrier, fully engaging
the
audience
members.
To
end, the dancers each took
turns improvising to a funky,
upbeat song, with the audience
clapping along; everyone left
fully energized.
With
a
minimalistic
soundtrack, two large silver
cubes created by several rails
and a rigging system, the six
dancers artfully maneuvered
the stage. Sometimes using
harnesses to become weightless
and sometimes using just gravity
and one another’s bodyweight,
they incorporated suspension
and reliance. At other times,
the group moved independently,
relying on their own momentum
and force though breakdance,
hip-hop
footwork
and
contemporary
dance.
The
aerial rigging system allowed
the dancers to defy gravity,
exploring new dimensions and
broadening the scope of their
own movement. With incredible
strength and flexibility they not
only just had the floor of the
stage to work with, but also the
space above. Walking up the side
of another dancer, completely
parallel to the floor, and floating
above and along the railings of
the silver cubes, Wang Ramirez
constantly challenged gravity
— transforming their palate
of movement and allowing an
exploration of the relationship
between body and space.
From
a
social
thought
experiment on yelling “I love
you” and “I hate you” to a bowl
of rice, to crazy high heels
and
tutus,
the
production
intrigued on countless levels.
Incorporating
both
outward
humor through gesture and
occasional dialogue and an
innate
conversation
that
questioned
human
identity,
there were many ways that
individuals
could
have
experienced the performance.
Regardless,
Wang
Ramirez
captured an attitude incredibly
relatable to society today: a
thoughtful
seriousness
that
somehow does not take itself
too seriously. “Borderline” is
a production that challenges
our
most
thought-provoking
ideas today and still makes you
laugh. It allowed the audience to
enjoy, engage and explore what
it means to be human — both in
movement and in thought.
Wang Ramirez
captured an
attitude incredibly
relatable to
society today
Wang Ramirez
were unfiltered
in movement,
obeying only the
human body