The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Monday, October 1, 2018 — 5A
Seven or eight years ago,
when it looked like AMC’s quiet
prestige period drama “Mad
Men” was onto something, a
bunch of network execs picked
up the phone, presumably barked
“’60s!” to whoever was on the
line and we were all treated to
some of the most disastrous
television ever, in the form of
“Pan Am” and “The Playboy
Club.” NBC’s “This Is Us” is the
latest TV powerhouse to inspire
such a response, though none as
transparent as ABC’s “A Million
Little Things,” which might as
well be called “Hey, This Is Also
Us!”
“A Million Little Things” is
the story of four friends who
met while trapped in an elevator
on the way to a Bruins game.
Jon (Ron Livingston, “Band
of Brothers”) is the glue of the
group, a successful businessman,
devoted husband and Harvard
graduate who takes it upon
himself to spout such nuggets of
wisdom as, “Everything happens
for a reason,” and “Friendship
isn’t one big thing, it’s…” — can
you guess? — “…a million little
things.”
Rome
(Romany
Malco,
“Weeds”), an aspiring filmmaker,
is happily married to a talented
restaurateur
but
privately
struggles with depression. Gary
(James Roday, “Psych”) is a
sardonic breast cancer survivor
who picks up women at survivor
support groups and takes them
on first dates to funerals. And
then
there’s
Eddie
(David
Giuntoli, “Grimm”), a guitar
teacher who lives perhaps the
most tragic life of all, desperately
trying to escape his marriage to
a (shudder) lawyer, who works
long hours and sometimes needs
him to pick up their son from
daycare. Oh, the horror! Sorry,
bud, someone has to pay for the
Bruins tickets.
Rome, Gary and Eddie are
stunned when they learn that Jon
has committed suicide. Jon’s own
mantra, “Everything happens for
a reason,” keeps coming back
to haunt them. He was strong,
successful and happy, with loving
friends and family, so what could
possibly be his reason? Here’s
where “A Million Little Things”
veers into dangerous territory.
Rather than accept that Jon
might have been in pain for a
long time or that people are more
complicated than we see them
to be, everyone quickly searches
for reasons. Was it because Jon’s
wife was unfaithful? Does it have
anything to do with a mysterious
business deal?
And then the show quickly
arrives at the most odious
conclusion of all: Maybe it took
Jon killing himself for everyone
to come to terms with their own
problems. It presents suicide
as romantic or necessary or
beneficial to other people, when
it’s none of those things. And of
course, the whole thing is neatly
wrapped in montages set to
“Riptide” by Vance Joy and “Both
Sides Now” by Joni Mitchell.
(ABC, you leave Joni out of this!)
There’s a very strong case to be
made that “This Is Us” also leans
hard on emotional manipulation
of its audience. But somehow it
works. The narrative twists are
earned. The emotional punches
are mostly well-crafted. And the
entire show is so nicely acted
that every character feels real
and worthy of our empathy. “A
Million Little Things” just can’t
pull that off. Which is perfectly
understandable;
it’s not easy — even
Dan
Fogelman,
who
created
“This
Is
Us,”
couldn’t replicate
its
winning
formula
in
the
widely-panned
“Life
Itself.”
Not to mention,
getting people to
empathize
with
Boston
hockey
fans is a very tall
order.
The
biggest
crime
a
show
like
“A
Million
Little
Things”
commits
is
to
assume that the
audience watching
it is stupid. No
one
watched
“Mad
Men”
for
cigarettes
or
upholstery
or
gin
martinis.
We
watched
it
because it told a
story about deeply
complicated
people struggling
to make sense of
a volatile world.
It was a show that
never thought its
interesting setting
was a substitute for
scrupulous writing
and
delicious
emotional payoffs.
And people don’t
watch
“This
Is
Us”
for
crying
and death — in
fact, many of us
enjoy
it
despite
its schmaltz. Pro
tip: If you’re going
to rip off a show,
at least bother to
figure out what
made
the
show
work in the first
place.
‘A Million Little Things’
is just one giant disaster
TV REVIEW
MAITREYI ANANTHARAMAN
Daily Arts Writer
ABC
The opening of any concert
season is an exciting event. This
past week’s University Musical
Society
season-opener
was
particularly thrilling. The hall
was abuzz with energy, with
student and longtime subscribers
lined up all the way out the door
to witness the performance.
The Philadelphia Orchestra was
on hand to deliver a masterful
performance of two staples of
the repertoire and an inspired
performance of a new addition.
The first piece on the program
was Nico Muhly’s “Liar, Suite from
Marnie,” an orchestral suite from
Muhly’s new opera premiering on
Oct. 19 at the Metropolitan Opera.
The
piece
featured
frequent
staccato passages in the lower
woodwinds and strings along
with longer melodic material in
the upper strings. The opening
was
energetic,
immediately
grabbing the audience’s attention.
After
about
five
minutes,
however, this idea began to tire.
Short bursts from the basses
and cellos did little to sustain
the fading energy. The work was
at its best in the long melodic
passages that pervaded the rest
of the work. Overall, however,
it could never reach the frantic
energy of the opening measures
— as the piece continued a quick
glance around the hall would
reveal the audience becoming
increasingly disengaged as the
piece continued.
As a taste of Muhly’s upcoming
opera, the work was promising.
His ideas were fresh and his use of
accented notes in the lower strings
was unexpected and intriguing.
The trading of long melodic notes
between woodwinds and strings
was quite lovely. But one hopes
that the pacing and structure of
Muhly’s opera is less predictable
than that of the “Suite.”
The second piece on the
program
was
Tchaikovsky’s
“Violin Concerto in D Major”
with soloist Lisa Batiashvili.
From the very first notes of
the Tchaikovsky, the orchestra
seemed more comfortable with
the music. This was clearly the
type of playing that they do
all the time, and they did not
disappoint. The soloist made
even the most complicated of
passages seem simple, and as her
playing increased in intensity,
the orchestra matched her step-
by-step.
The
audience
could
not help but applaud the end of
the first movement though two
movements were still to come. As
conductor Yannick Nézet-Séguin
pointed out, this would have
been standard practice during
Tchaikovsky’s time.
The following two movements
were similarly magnificent. The
orchestra and soloist played with
a level of intensity that demanded
attention from the audience — it
was impossible to sit passively
throughout
the
performance.
The finale, in particular, was
breathtaking.
Batiashvili
possesses an effortless ability to
take even the most difficult of
passages and make them seem
effortless. She soared above the
orchestra,
the
upper
strings
responding to her every move
and echoing her in kind. Nézet-
Séguin and Batiashvili clearly
enjoy working together, as they
frequently smiled at each other
and responded to each other in
kind throughout the work.
After five minutes of applause
following
the
piece,
Nézet-
Séguin and Batiashvili offered a
brief encore with Nézet-Séguin
accompanying
her
from
the
piano.
Nézet-Séguin’s
piano
playing was surprisingly delicate
and subtle — though he conducts
with large, sweeping gestures
his piano playing was relaxed
and gentle. Given that he will be
returning in Dec. to accompany
Joyce DiDonato in a recital of
Schubert’s “Winterreise,” it is
clear that Nézet-Séguin is equally
as comfortable at the piano as he
is on the podium.
The concert finished with a
performance of Rachmaninoff’s
“Symphonic Dances.” Combining
energetic rhythms and simple
melodic
material,
this
was
Rachmaninoff’s last and arguably
best work. Nézet-Séguin lead an
aggressive interpretation of the
work, emphasizing the complex
rhythms and jarringly simple
melodic material. Yet even with
this
aggressive
interpretive
angle, the orchestra did not lose
momentum as they had with
the Muhly. They brought a fresh
vitality to the work, something
that I have not heard in many
other performances of it. Though
musicality
in
some
passages
was replaced by brute force, the
overall effect was compelling.
The end of the performance
was
met
with
a
near-
instantaneous standing ovation.
And after five minutes, the
orchestra
responded
to
the
cries of “encore” with a surprise
performance of “The Victors.”
Nézet-Séguin had been wearing
a white shirt with shoulder pads
and mesmerizing purple sequined
shoes, and as he returned to
the stage wearing a Michigan
baseball hat, he encouraged the
audience to clap and sing along. It
was a fun ending to the night and
an encouraging sign of what was
to come this concert season. As
the audience left the auditorium,
the excitement was palpable. The
Philadelphia Orchestra had more
than lived up to expectations,
and it is up to the next ensemble
to match the intensity that they
brought to this season opener.
Philadelphia Orchestra
as the UMS season opener
SAMMY SUSSMAN
Daily Arts Writer
COMMUNITY CULTURE REVIEW
Last week, my popular horror
class
was
discussing
“Dear
David,” a ghost story told last
year via Twitter by Adam Ellis.
“Dear David” is presented by
Ellis as being a true story that
he experienced in person. One
of the criticisms brought up was
the idea that while Ellis provided
many forms of evidence that his
apartment was being haunted
—
audio
files,
photographs,
diagrams and videos — there was
no piece of evidence that couldn’t
have been faked or made up.
Therefore, his ghost story was
not to be believed.
Personally,
I’m
always
naturally hesitant to say that
I don’t believe something. I’d
probably never commit to saying
I don’t believe in ghosts, or
most other things some people
consider to be incredulous, even
though I can’t confidently say I’ve
met a ghost myself. I’m not sure I
would recognize a ghost if I came
across one — I might brush it off,
attach some other explanation
to it, or miss it completely — and
if I can’t say I’d recognize a real
one, then I can’t fairly say I’d
know when I’m seeing a fake
one, either. Similarly, I don’t
consider myself religious, but
I’ve never committed to saying I
don’t believe in God or any kind
of higher power.
I didn’t think too much
more about the “Dear David”
discussion until a couple of
days later, when I was talking
with someone else about the
Kavanaugh hearing. The hearing
has dominated the news for the
last week, and particularly the
last few days, with questions
arising of Kavanaugh’s conduct
on the stand, the demonstrability
of Ford’s account of Kavanaugh
sexually
assaulting
her
and
credibility on both ends. The
person
with
whom
I
was
speaking essentially said that
they didn’t believe Ford, because
she could technically have been
lying. There was no evidence
that indicated with absolute
certainty, without a shadow of
a doubt, that Kavanaugh had
assaulted her. Therefore, she
shouldn’t be believed.
This flippant dismissal of Ford
stuck out to me, in part because
it reminded me so much of the
“Dear David” discussion. Is
that really our national default
when it comes to sexual assault?
Assessing it against the same
metrics we’d use to pick apart a
ghost story?
The issue of lacking evidence
has been brought up often over
the course of the hearing, just as
it’s often brought up when people
are
discussing
“fantastical”
claims such as accounts of
encounters with ghosts and
aliens. It’s true, in the case of the
Kavanaugh hearing, that with
little decisive physical evidence
on both ends, a lot of the case
is a matter of he-said, she-said.
Many of our perceptions come
down to what we do know: For
instance, that Ford has passed a
polygraph test while Kavanaugh
hasn’t even taken one, and that
three other women — Deborah
Ramirez, Julie Swetnick and one
anonymous woman — have also
accused Kavanaugh of sexual
assault or misconduct.
It can’t be proven definitively
that Kavanaugh did assault Ford.
But one of the many differences
between the Kavanaugh hearing
and ghost stories like “Dear
David” is that one has a definite
bearing on the future of our
nation. With Kavanaugh up for
a position of authority that he
may hold for the rest of his life,
a position that will have a drastic
influence on the direction of our
country, we as a nation need
to carefully consider ideas of
credibility. According to news
sources including Slate, Vox
and Esquire, Kavanaugh lied
repeatedly and plainly while he
was under oath.
I’m hesitant to discount ghost
stories and religion because I
don’t want to commit myself to
a narrow-minded perspective,
simply because the evidence
isn’t concrete enough for me. I
think the nation should avoid
committing itself to a Supreme
Court Justice who has proven
willing to bend and break basic
courtroom practices, such as
answering
questions
directly
and
truthfully,
to
suit
his
purposes. The issue at stake
right now isn’t whether or not
Kavanaugh is going to be sent
to prison; it’s whether powerful
figures are willing to look past
the possibility of him assaulting
someone far enough to give him a
lifetime Supreme Court seat.
Sexual assault survivors are
not ghosts. They’re not aliens.
If we approach their consistent
and measured testimony with
the same skepticism we bear
while discussing a ghost story,
we tell the world that to the
United States, the stories of Ford,
Ramirez, Swetnick and other
survivors are just that: stories.
An important decision is to be
made as a result of this hearing —
let that not be it.
Credibility, ghost stories
and Christine Blasey Ford
LITERATURE COLUMN
“A Million Little
Things”
Series Premiere
ABC
Wednesday at 10 p.m.
LAURA
DZUBAY
By C.C. Burnikel
©2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/01/18
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
10/01/18
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
Release Date: Monday, October 1, 2018
ACROSS
1 Crispy fried
chicken part
5 Foolish sort
9 Neeson of
“Silence”
13 Cancún currency
14 Nonspeaking
street performer
15 Cellist Casals
16 “__ it first!”
17 Complete
quickly, as a test
19 Spring melts
21 Lake crossed
traveling from
Ohio to Ontario
22 Golf course
standard
23 Predecessor to
Millard Fillmore
27 “Later, Jacques”
28 Northern sky
sight
31 Mixed-breed
barker
34 Isl. of Australia
36 Remove mist
from, as a
windshield
37 Sushi tuna
38 Grabbed a chair
39 Praiseful poem
41 Angsty music
genre
42 Lovestruck teen
from Verona
44 Houston MLBer
46 Unexpected
problem
47 Angelic figure
49 Transplant to a
new container
51 Strict rule-
enforcement
policy
56 Margaret of
stand-up
58 Chilly
59 Get the better of
60 Buddhist
meditation sites
64 Tubular pasta ...
and a phonetic
hint to 17-,
23-, 51- and
60-Across
65 Geometry
calculations
66 Brazilian soccer
legend
67 Actor Baldwin
68 Sore throat sign
69 Part of GPS:
Abbr.
70 Some cameras,
for short
DOWN
1 Dog group that
includes the
Akita
2 “Tik Tok” singer
3 Author Asimov
4 “Yet another
problem?”
5 Tabloid TV
debut of 2007
6 Xbox 360
competitor
7 Driving force
8 Colorful
aquarium fish
9 Poet __-tzu
10 Active ingredient
in Advil
11 Pond growth
12 Jay of “Last
Comic Standing”
15 Musical intro
18 “Howdy there!”
20 Pathetic
24 Beatles’ meter
maid
25 First Irish
Literature
Nobelist
26 Miner’s strike
29 Egg-shaped
tomato
30 Spellbound
31 Artist Chagall
32 “Looks like
trouble!”
33 Mountain and
Pacific, e.g.
35 Gourmet
mushroom
38 Reporter’s
contacts
40 Info
43 Before, poetically
45 Streetcar
46 Sonnet sections
48 Market upswing
50 Gold, to José
52 Big name in
trading cards
53 Sam of “Jurassic
Park”
54 More adorable
55 Heroic sagas
56 Industry mogul
57 Zeus’ jealous
wife
61 Touch lightly
62 Lolling trio?
63 Erector __