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