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 __