Few operas have the name 
recognition that Mozart’s “The 
Marriage of Figaro” holds. This 
weekend, the School of Music, 
Theatre & Dance will present a 
modern interpretation of the great 
classic at the Lydia Mendelssohn 
Theatre. 
Directed 
by 
Grant 
Preisser, the opera will be sung 
in Italian with projected English 
supertitles. 
The 
University 
Philharmonic 
Orchestra, 
conducted by Martin Katz, will be 
performing alongside the singers.
“The Marriage of Figaro” is a 
romantic comedy — a rarity in a 
genre that is normally overflowing 
with tragedy. The story, based on 
the play by Pierre Beaumarchais, 
is set in Seville, Spain and follows 
the story of Figaro, a servant to 
the Count and Countess, and 
his fiancé Susanna. The Count, 
unhappy with his marriage to 
the Countess, is infatuated with 
Susanna. The Countess hears 
wind of this love affair and 
furiously vows to take revenge. 
Thus springs a complex plotline of 
trickery, cross-dressing and tests 
of loyalty. Think Shakespeare’s 
“Othello,” but with less ominous 
undertones.
Under Preisser’s direction, this 
centuries-old opera is much more 
adapted to modern times.
“He decided to put a big clash 
between women as sex objects 

and 
women 
as 
empowered 
figures,” said Zachary Crowle, 
a SMTD graduate student, of 
Preisser. Crowle plays the Count, 
a character that regularly sexually 
and 
verbally 
abuses 
women 
throughout the opera. Mozart 
creates a foil to this sexism in 
the character of Susanna, who 
is a refreshingly strong female 

character.
“She’s very smart, very funny 
and not afraid to speak her mind,” 
said Mahari Conston, another 
SMTD 
graduate 
student, 
of 
Susanna.
“The women are not only 
constantly standing up to those 
with power, but are working 
together to improve upon it,” 
said Kristine Overman, SMTD 
undergraduate. The beauty of 
“The Marriage of Figaro” is in 
these timeless parallels to modern 
times; the behaviour of Susanna 
and the Countess are reminiscent 
of the ongoing global #MeToo 

movement.
Preisser has also taken care to 
enhance Mozart’s emphasis on 
class struggle in the opera. Written 
just before the time of the French 
Revolution, “The Marriage of 
Figaro” was considered very 
controversial when it first came 
to theaters, so much so that a 
majority of theaters refused to 
air the opera. The socioeconomic 
clash between Figaro, a servant, 
and the Count, a member of the 
extravagant aristocrat class, is 
apparent to any viewer.
“It was really one of the first 
times in history that any kind 
of literature stood up to people 
in power,” Crowle said. We see 
this kind of opposition to power 
every day in the news, through 
marches and protests both in the 
University and around the world.
SMTD undergraduate Justin 
Burgess, 
who 
plays 
Figaro, 
commented 
that 
the 
visuals 
have been updated as well to fit 
with modern times; they aren’t 
the typical archaic style that is 
expected of operas.
“There’s a juxtaposition of 
old imagery mixed with bright, 
modern day technicolor,” Burgess 
said. “It really makes a cool visual 
for the audience.”
From relatable characters and 
relevant social issues, to modern 
sets and color schemes, SMTD’s 
rendition of “The Marriage of 
Figaro” aims to think outside the 
box and adapt to the changing 
interests of our current society.

‘The Marriage of Figaro’ 
to keep with modern times 

TRINA PAL
Daily Arts Writer

Courtesy of SMTD

“The Marriage of 
Figaro”

Mar. 22 @ 7:30 PM, 
Mar. 23 & 24 @ 8 PM, 
Mar. 25 @ 2 PM

Lydia Mendelssohn 
Theatre

$30 or $24 reserved 
seating, $12 student ID

What’s my relationship with 
Shonda Rhimes’s shows? Let’s 
just say it’s complicated.
My love affair started many 
years ago when my mom and 
I became hooked on the soap-
opera antics of “Grey’s Anatomy” 
— that is, before it digressed 
into a monotonous, millennial 
obsession. From there, I stopped 
visiting Shondaland for a while, 
because “Scandal” was deemed 
a little too, well, scandalous for 
my 12-year-old self. Yet, when I 
eventually got around to watching 
the suspense-filled series, I was 
left in awe of the bravado of Kerry 
Washington. Now even more 
recently, I have started binging 
“How to Get Away with Murder” 
and 
have 
become 
instantly 

infatuated with the mystery of it 
all, streaming it every chance I 
get.
Throughout the many good and 
not-so-good phases of Rhimes’s 
creations, her sign of involvement 
is undeniably recognizable. In a 
seemingly tired and repetitive 
fashion — or perhaps as a mark of 
sheer genius — her shows share 

the same tropes and themes 
across the board: a bold female 
lead, a group of attractive young 
professionals trying to prove their 
worth, dizzying love triangles, 
a lot of dead bodies and an epic 
soundtrack.

Let me be clear, though — 
Shonda Rhimes’s brand as one of 
the most powerful Black female 
producers is iconic, full stop. 
She’s gone on to build an empire 
by herself, with five shows airing 
or in development on ABC, a 
production deal with Netflix and 
fame emerging from four years 
of #TGIT watch parties. After 
all this time, it’s no secret that 
Rhimes has generated a television 
phenomenon, making nuanced 
characters and absurd subplots 
her showrunner staple.
But how much longer will the 
same old storyline be able to pack 
a punch? With “For the People,” 
Rhimes’s newest addition to the 
Shondaland family, it appears that 
her winning formula is beginning 
to lose its magic touch.
This time around, the latest 
ABC legal drama follows a crew 
of budding lawyers — three for 

Repetitiveness of Rhimes

MORGAN RUBINO
Daily Arts Writer

the defense and three for the 
prosecution. As their personal 
and professional lives clash, they 
take on some of the most high-
profile cases in the U.S., while 
also probably sleeping around and 
forming a list of enemies.
Judging its merit by a mere 
60 minutes, “For the People” 
has nothing on the pilots of 
“Scandal” and “How to Get Away 
with Murder.” For starters, its 
core group of actors are largely 
unconvincing, save for Regé-Jean 
Page (“Roots”) as the resident 
trouble maker and prosecutor 
Leonard Knox. Even then, most 
of the leads are undiscovered 
talents with a bright-eyed, fresh-
faced quality to them that feels 
out of place on what should be a 
more gritty series. As defender 
Sandra Bell, the assumed female 
lead, Britt Robertson (“Girlboss”) 
does a satisfactory job of carrying 
the plot along, but lacks the 
gravitas 
necessary 
to 
even 

attempt to match Olivia Pope 
(Kerry Washington, “Scandal”) 
or Annalise Keating (Viola Davis, 
“How to Get Away with Murder”).
That’s not saying, though, 
that “For the People” should 
even be compared to prior 
Shondaland royalty. In fact, an 
area that the show differs from 
its predecessors is in its portrayal 
of the judicial system as a whole. 
The presentation of what court is 
like — the behind-the-scenes look 
at being a lawyer and the overall 
stresses of the job — are not only 
authenticized, but emphasized.
Instead of some mysterious 
murder 
or 
dramatic 
affair 
stealing the spotlight of the 
show, experiences that could 
conceivably happen in the real 
world float to the forefront. In 
the first episode, Sandra is tasked 
with defending a teenage Muslim-
American accused of planning to 
bomb the Statue of Liberty. OK, so 
maybe this example is a little far-

fetched, but Sandra’s emotionally-
backed defense of the innocent 
boy snaps us back to reality. On 
the flipside, an insider trading 
case pits lawyer couple Seth (Ben 
Rappaport, “Outsourced”) and 
Allison (Jasmin Savoy Brown, 
“The Leftovers”) against one 
another, 
literally. 
As 
Allison 
defends and Seth prosecutes, the 
pair constantly have to remind 
each other that their relationship 
can survive this — which is, of 
course, a tell-tale sign that it can’t.
It’s almost as if I can predict 
exactly what path “For the 
People” is likely to follow because 
its plot so far is extremely 
average. Maybe I was missing 
some of the Shonda Rhimes’s 
signature chaos and tragedy, or 
maybe the tropes are just getting 
out of touch. Either way, “For the 
People” and its fight for justice 
sparks an unimpressive sense of 
déjà vu and doesn’t add much to 
the Shondaland dynasty.

ABC

AMC

TV NOTEBOOK

TV has come a long way. 
Long gone are the days of the 
sickeningly 
uniform 
ubiquity 
of “fast-food TV,” those easily 
digestible 20 or 30-minute serials 
and soaps whose laugh tracks 
and cheap drama relegated TV 
into being the immature little 
brother of film. Fast forward 
20 odd years and, as hundreds 
of think pieces espouse, on a 
regular basis, we are in the 
“golden age” of TV. While film 
sometimes gives the impression 
of falling into an endless cycle 
of reboots and sequels, TV is 
filled with innovative, clever, 
dramatic, Shakespearean works 
of art. Even Meryl fucking 
Streep is on HBO. Helping kick-
start this revolution was a show, 
on a floundering network with 
unknown actors, called “Mad 
Men.”
Or so I’d been told. Despite 
being familiar with all the 
“modern classics” of “The Wire,” 
“The 
Sopranos,” 
“Breaking 
Bad,” etc., I’d hastily dismissed 
“Mad Men” as being style over 
substance. I was unable to look 
beyond the glamorous hair, suits 
and fancy cocktail orders to see 
what “Mad Men” truly is: one 
of the greatest set of character 
studies in modern TV.
“Mad Men” spans roughly a 
decade in the 1960s and 1970s, 
focusing on the offices of Sterling 
Cooper, a Madison Avenue firm 
at the height of the advertising 
craze. It centers on the life of 
Don Draper (Jon Hamm, “Baby 
Driver”), a talented creative 
director at Sterling Cooper with 
a ridiculous amount of self-
assured swagger and an equally 
mysterious past. The show uses 
the 
interactions 
of 
Sterling 
Cooper employees to explore 
and reflect upon the changing 
social norms of the turbulent 
’60s, drawing on topics from the 
counterculture movement to the 
Civil Rights Movement.
Period dramas had been done 
before and since, but few have 
the ability of “Mad Men” to 
fully engross in the world they 
portray. The attention to detail 
in every aspect of the show is 
stunning, but more importantly, 
the environments the character 
live in do not feel explicitly like 
sets. Rather, they are as dynamic 
and alive as the characters 
themselves.
While Don Draper’s story is 
the centerpiece of the show, it 

is the interactions of the large 
cast of characters that make 
the show a masterpiece. The 
arcs of Pete Campbell (Vincent 
Kartheiser, “The Most Hated 
Woman 
in 
America”) 
and 
Sterling Cooper senior partner 
Roger Sterling (John Slattery, 
“Captain America: Civil War”) 
are some of the show’s most 
impactful, and, if anything, carry 
more tenable lessons to draw 
from. Sal Romano’s (Bryan Batt, 
“Mississippi Murder”) arc is a 
poignant exploration of society’s 
view on homosexuality. Even the 
minor characters, of which there 
are hundreds, feel fleshed out 
and realistic.
In another sense, the true 
heroes of the show are the 
women. Peggy Olsen (Elizabeth 
Moss, “The Handmaid’s Tale”) 
and 
Joan 
Harris 
(Christina 
Hendricks, “Zoolander 2”), the 
show’s two prominent female 
characters manage to rise above 
the traditional social structures 
imposed in a workplace such as 
the Sterling Cooper agency to 
gain greater standing. Peggy’s 
arc in particular is stunning 
to witness, especially after her 
introduction as a seemingly 
naïve, typical secretary school 
graduate in the pilot.
Another remarkable aspect 
of the show is that looking back, 
it never relied on traditional 
crowd-pleasers 
such 
as 
shoehorned romantic plots or 
violence. The relationships are 
(frustratingly) real and complex. 
All the drama and intrigue is due 
to social interactions between 
relatively uninteresting subjects: 
Corporate 
executives. 
In 
retrospect, my initial assumption 
of the show prioritizing style 
over substance was not just 
incorrect, it was the exact 
opposite of the true situation. 
While 
the 
flamboyant 
hair 
and glamorous, three-martini 
lunches 
were 
irresistible 
to 
watch, they weren’t for show, but 
rather for realism. The skilled 
writing and production elevate 
the show from simply being 
another “Pan Am.”
Each arc of each character 
in “Mad Men” is dynamic and 
compelling. 
The 
show 
does 
not fall prey to flanderization 
and creates a cast of three-
dimensional 
characters, 
each 
with his or her own set of 
strengths 
and 
insecurities. 
Ultimately, these attributes, in 
addition to the authenticity of 
the time period it portrays, make 
“Mad Men” one of the greatest 
TV shows of all time.

“Smoke Gets in Your Eyes,” 
season 1, episode 1
The one that started it all. 
Pilots are hard, and rightfully so. 
More often than not, I’ve usually 
had to give a show the benefit of 
the doubt and keep on watching 
despite a lackluster pilot. “Mad 
Men,” 
on 
the 
other 
hand, 
offers a perfect distillation and 
introduction to its rich, complex 
world. The first time we are 
introduced to Don Draper, he’s 
trying to figure out how to market 
cigarettes 
despite 
growing 
awareness of their health risks. 
Peggy is only the bumbling, 
shy secretary who hasn’t quite 
learned how to navigate the 
workplace. Pete Campbell is 
the most dislikable, nakedly 
ambitious prick one could be. 
Looking back after finishing 
the series, it’s a testament to 
the quality of the writing that 
while some of the characters 
feel like completely different 
people at the conclusion, their 
transformations 
are 
entirely 
believable if you look closer at 
the pilot.
“The Other Woman,” season 
5, episode 11
The Sterling Cooper team 
is working around the clock to 
secure the Jaguar account. At 
the same time, Joan wrestles 
with an extremely humiliating 
proposal. Hendricks is stunning 
in this episode, portraying a 
subtle, complex reaction that 
isn’t something we’d quite expect 
from her. The episode conjures 
a variety of ethical questions 
regarding business in general, 
and the juxtaposition of Joan’s 
decision and the handling of the 
Jaguar deal as a whole is one of 
the series’ most compelling.
“Lost Horizon,” season 7, 
episode 12
This episode features one of 
my favorite television scenes 
ever, as Peggy struts down the 
halls of McCann Erickson with 
sunglasses, a cigarette hanging 
out of her mouth and a copy of 
“The Dream of the Fisherman’s 
Wife,” all with the most satisfying 
smirk ever seen on television. 
Prior to this triumphant arrival, 
her interactions with Roger are 
heartwarming. Joan’s mixture 
of hope and disappointment 
are 
especially 
poignant. 
While Don’s journey is not 
quite as interesting, it offers 
a decent amount of character 
development. It also tiptoes the 
line of absurd humor and serious 
social commentary extremely 
well, as “Mad Men” often does so 
successfully.

Revisiting TV: ‘Mad Men’

SAYAN GHOSH
Daily Arts Writer

“For the People”

Series Premiere

Tuesdays @ 10 PM

ABC

TV REVIEW

COMMUNITY CULTURE

5 — Friday, March 23, 2018
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com