Sarah Zettel, University alum
and author of “The Other Sister”
recently sat down to speak with
The Daily about her latest release.
From starting off at the University
scribbling in “notebooks with
friends creating shared worlds,”
today Zettel has produced over
18 novels in sci-fi, romance,
fantasy and various other genres.
“The Other Sister” is a domestic
suspense and psychological thriller
that flips the traditional fairytale
upside down. The novel follows
two sisters, Geraldine and Marie
Monroe through secretive schemes
and abnormal familial dynamics.
From my conversation with Zettel
it is is clear that her latest work is
laced with darker shades of human
psyche and the dichotomy of good
and evil.
Zettel’s inspiration for writing
“The Other Sister” is tethered to
her childhood love for the Brothers
Grimm Fairy Tales. Since she was
13, she knew she wanted to write in
a wide variety of literary genres and
forms. Today her childhood vision
has blossomed into reality, with her
various published works ranging
from science fiction to young adult
romance to, currently, domestic
suspense. Zettel recognizes that
“The Other Sister” belongs under
the domestic suspense genre.
“It’s more about the idea than
where it goes on the shelf,” Zettel
said.
She is well aware of the good
and ugly stepsister tropes, but
what really sparked her inspiration
for “The Other Sister” was what
it would be like to be the ugly
stepsister. She wanted to play with
a range of emotions and dynamics
among people.
“Each genre offers you a chance
to put a new angle on a story,”
Zettel said. This novel, therefore,
explores the consequences and
casualties that occur when darker
family dynamics are in play.
Fairytales commonly confine
women to inferior or victimizing
roles, while men are depicted
with heroic stature. When I asked
how Zettel tackled these gendered
tropes while writing “The Other
Sister,” she said: “The common
perception of women that is used
to keep them in their place is that
women are not allowed simply to be
human beings, they are supposed
to be giving beings.”
This description entails that
women are expected to give to
everyone around them.
“If she doesn’t give enough
and in the right ways then she is a
bad woman and you can do what
you want to her,” Zettel said. She
wanted to explore what happens
when women don’t “give properly.”
Zettel
explained
that
women
simply are not allowed to be angry
about
anything,
neither
their
status nor the expectation put on
them to give to others without any
reciprocation.
“I also wanted to explore what
happens when you either refuse
not to suppress your anger or you
hide it so well that you are left with
very few options,” Zettel said. She
sympathizes with Geraldine for
this same reason, as Geraldine is
the troubled and outcasted sister
in contrast to her more conforming
sibling Marie.
To Zettel, any form of writing
or public expression by women is
inherently a feminist act.
“It’s finally allowing us to give
voice to the range of what it is to
be complete human and to be a
woman,” Zettel commented on
writing. Zettel described that
suspense and thriller genres allow
writers and readers to look at how
anger, violence and justice uniquely
affect women. She cites “Gone Girl”
as a recent example of a suspense
novel and film that deconstructs
representations of women as the
“perfect victim.”
“It is a really interesting piece
of work,” Zettel said. “Deliberately
feminist or not, it is a deeply
feminist piece of work”
In
the
past,
Zettel
wrote
full-time nestled in her garret
with a cat and now finds herself
working in a well-lit, social writing
workspace;
her
extroverted
personality is thriving. You can
tell she is a prolific author with
exceptional enthusiasm for her
craft. Zettel is engaging, passionate
and
determined
to
cultivate
constructive depictions of women
in her work.
4A — Wednesday, November 7, 2018
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
‘Bohemian’ biopic can’t
remember that it’s a story
Can a character survive if his
story is taken away?
This is a risky question for
any
storyteller
to
entertain.
Unfortunately, that didn’t stop the
makers of “Bohemian Rhapsody,”
a film that markets itself as a Queen
biopic and waits to deliver on that
promise until the latter portion of
its runtime, until it’s too late.
Leading up to that transition
into
legitimate
storytelling,
Bryan
Singer’s
(“X-Men”)
“Bohemian Rhapsody” is hardly
a story. Instead, the disjointed
scenes chronicling Queen’s rise
seem like a highlight reel: one
scene per episode of success in
Queen’s career. The effects of this
approach are emotionally varied
but unvaryingly detrimental. On
one hand, the highlight reel erases
struggle in favor of a dizzyingly
rapid, romantic and easy road to
success. The dialogue also slackens
without a story to support it, so the
filmmakers’ habit of writing their
theses about the significance of
Queen into conversations between
members of Queen and record
executives feels contrived and
questionable in turn.
The direct consequence of the
vacancy of story and the attempt
to fill this void, however, is the
effects
on
Freddie
Mercury’s
characterization. Though Rami
Malek (“Mr. Robot”) makes the
most of every scene, the answer
to the opening inquiry — can a
character survive without a story?
— is still, by and large: No.
The filmmakers, having opted
for the convenience of the highlight
reel over the tedium of crafting a
story, must then portray Mercury
within this framework. So, in the
fragmented spirit of highlight reels,
they truncate Mercury’s identity
crises. In doing so, not only do they
squander Malek’s versatility as
an actor, but they also ignore the
realities of how humans come to
terms with their social identities.
Initially, “Bohemian Rhapsody”
emphasizes
Mercury’s
racial
identity. A handful of early scenes
— including a tense disagreement
with his conservative father about
nightclub visits and Mercury’s
family’s
disappointment
after
Mercury had his given name,
Farrokh Bulsara, legally changed
— suggest Mercury struggled to
embrace his Parsi heritage. Then,
Mercury leaves home, and the
filmmakers drop this development
entirely; they fixate abruptly on
Mercury’s sexual identity instead.
This truncation is problematic
not only for the purposes of biopic
but for intersectionality. Why
can’t Mercury confront his racial,
national
and
sexual
identities
synchronously? Why must anyone
ever be reduced to one social
identity? What was convenient for
the filmmakers disenfranchises
those who identify with multiple
marginalized groups.
In part three of Mercury’s
truncated identity crises, Mercury
hits a low point and suffers
from loneliness and substance
abuse. On the one hand, these
challenges
transcend
social
identity and initiate a long-awaited
character arc. In other words,
Mercury becomes a character and
“Bohemian Rhapsody” remembers
it’s his story. On the other hand, it’s
too late for the film to fully recover
from the absence of a story, so his
low point as a character cannot be
ascribed to a preexisting character
arc; the only factor audiences
have to point to is the most recent
identity crisis, and that is Mercury’s
coming out as bisexual. Once
again, the filmmakers’ pseudo-
storytelling inadvertently wounds
the
marginalized
communities
the film and Mercury’s portrayal
should have empowered.
Though by no means does
“Bohemian Rhapsody” becoming
a story right its wrongs, it gives
the film the narrative momentum
it needs. In turn, the film is
able to work toward a climax,
and it delivers. The concluding
sequence,
capturing
Queen’s
1985 performance at Live Aid,
is the invigorating, rewarding
antithesis of the highlight reel. It
is patiently, unromantically shot.
And for all the ways “Bohemian
Rhapsody” disrespected Mercury
as an individual, the film always
respected Queen’s music, and
this scene is no exception. Most
notably, this scene proves one of the
theses about Queen’s significance
haphazardly inserted into dialogue
at the beginning of the film:
Everything Queen did was out of
love and respect for their fans. After
watching this sequence, comprised
of alternating footage of Queen’s
knockout performance and the
audience’s enthusiastic responses
to it, there is no doubt about Queen’s
distinctive love for their fan base.
While the recovery portion of
the film doesn’t compensate for
its initial series of shortcomings, it
opens up two possibilities. It will
likely leave the audience members
who managed to hurdle the initial
disappointments with a craving for
Queen’s music and, hopefully, the
raw materials to construct a more
holistic portrait of Mercury as well.
JULIANNA MORANO
For the Daily
20TH CENTURY FOX
ARTIST PROFILE
It’s raining on Election Day
It’s raining on Election Day.
Generally speaking, turnout is
lower when it rains on election
day, and when turnout is lower
it’s bad for Democrats. Now,
this is an entertainment and
media column and you might
think that an entertainment
and media columnist should
stick to writing articles about
blockbusters and pop artists
and the state of the industry,
but today is the first Tuesday
in November. I just got back
from my voting precinct, and
it’s raining on Election Day.
Tonight, Twitter and Facebook
and all the news networks and
most of the late-night shows
will be solely focused on the
midterms and the incoming
results. I’d be lying if I said I
wasn’t focused on them too.
It’s been a long two years. I
think, regardless of where you
fall on the political spectrum,
it’s hard to disagree with that.
Do you remember Sean Spicer?
What about the Mooch? That
Supreme
Court
battle
that
seemed to last for an eternity?
Or have there been two of those?
I may have forgotten. The pace
of our collective memory has
become so relentless that the
controversies of yesterday feel
like trivialities compared to
today. It’s not just in politics.
These past two years since the
election of Donald J. Trump
have seen major upheavals
in the entertainment world
as well. The consolidation of
media companies has continued
unchecked, with Disney and
Fox set to merge and join the
AT&T and Time Warner mega-
conglomerate that solidified
early this year. Three Star Wars
movies have come and gone,
a dozen more Marvel flicks
have hit the screens and the
DC movie universe collapsed
before our very eyes. Also, on
their way out the door, a long
list of powerful film executives
and
creatives
have
been
taken down by the #MeToo
movement in the wake of the
Harvey Weinstein scandal.
I sometimes will joke to my
friends that the 2016 election,
the success of Michigan sports
and the quality of various
entertainment
products
I
enjoy can be directly linked.
Going into Nov. 2016, Michigan
Football was undefeated and
ranked third in the country.
Four days after Donald Trump
got elected, Michigan dropped
a heartbreaker to Iowa and, at
the end of the month, J.T. was
stopped short — or at least we
Michigan fans think he was.
Going into Nov. 2016, the “Star
Wars” franchise had made a
triumphant return and was
poised to recapture its former
glory as the granddaddy of all
film franchises. Two years
and three controversial movies
later,
the
franchise
seems
doomed to relish in its own past
for eternity. Like America, it
can’t move forward. Two years
and seven episodes later and
George R.R. Martin is nowhere
close to finishing the books
series that has become the
basis for the TV phenomenon
“Game
of
Thrones.”
He’s
trapped in stasis. Of course, a
rational mind knows that none
of these things are connected.
In my mind, however, they will
always be inextricably linked.
This year, Michigan seems
poised to at long last reclaim
its rightful place at the top
of the Big Ten conference. A
date with destiny in Columbus
seems inevitable and you can’t
help but feel that at long last
our time has come. All of the
polling seems to indicate a huge
win for Gretchen Whitmer
and a strong chance for the
Democrats to take back the
House. The leaks coming out
of Belfast seem to indicate that
the last season of “Game of
Thrones” will be good. But with
Dylan McCaffrey out, Michigan
is just one bad play away
from having to start a third-
string quarterback, “Game of
Thrones” has never been the
same since they passed the
books, J.J. Abrams is surely
just going to remake “Return
of the Jedi” and it’s raining
on Election Day. Maybe I will
wake up tomorrow and all of
my blue wave dreams will come
true. But if these two punishing
years have taught me anything,
it’s the same thing that has been
ingrained into me as a Michigan
and Detroit sports fan since I
could breathe: “Hope for the
best, expect the worst.” I think
I’ll put an old episode of “The
West Wing” up on the TV to
cheer myself up. After all, it’s
DAILY ENTERTAINMENT COLUMN
“Bohemian
Rhapsody”
Ann Arbor 20 +
IMAX
20th Century Fox
FILM REVIEW
IAN HARRIS
TESSA ROSE
Daily Arts Writer
Sarah Zettel, on suspense,
women and ‘Other Sister’
Still to this day, the critical
acclaim and awe surrounding
Orson Welles and his classics like
“Citizen Kane” and “Touch of
Evil” holds strong. The legendary
actor / director, who gained
stardom in the ’40s and ’50s, is,
no doubt, an icon of cinematic
history. However, Welles’s latest,
posthumous release, “The Other
Side of the Wind,” may not
resonate with modern audiences
unexposed to the rest of his body
of work and reputation. Though
filled with entrancing cinematic
techniques
true
to
Welles’s
style, the plot of the film mirrors
Welles’s own life, and “The Other
Side of the Wind” only connects to
a specific, niche audience, while
making the typical movie-goer
feel little more than confusion
and disjointedness.
The film revolves around the
major, yet fading Hollywood
director
Jake
Hannaford
(John
Huston,
“Chinatown”).
At Hannaford’s 70th birthday
party, his newest and final film
is debuted for throngs of rowdy
party-attendees, reporters and
fellow
Hollywood
associates.
The film, also titled “The Other
Side of the Wind,” is unfinished,
fragmented and likely won’t be
distributed, as Hannaford has
only four days to complete it.
Interspersed between alcohol-
saturated
conversations
with
prodding reporters and fame-
seeking friends at the party are
sequences of Hannaford’s film
itself, which can only be described
as a bizarre, hyper-sexualized,
semi-romantic chase between an
attractive man and woman with
no dialogue. As the party unfolds,
the reporters and fans become
increasingly eager to “figure out”
the mysterious Hannaford, but as
the night goes on Hannaford only
becomes more and more closed
off, seemingly far more interested
in finding another bottle of booze
than engaging with his guests.
Reflective of Welles’s use of
mirrors and light in “Citizen
Kane,”
the
manipulation
of
light, dark, visual and auditory
synchronization throughout the
film is captivating. In both the
segments at the party and within
the screening of Hannaford’s
film,
there
is
an
apparently
indiscriminate tradeoff between
black-and-white
and
color
sequences. With no identifiable
pattern for when and why one
segment is black-and-white while
the next is in color, Welles creates
a feeling of intrigue and surprise
within viewers. Especially within
the
film-screening
portions,
the pairing of sound and image
is mesmerizing. In one part of
Hannaford’s film, the nameless
male and female protagonists hop
into a cab to escape the rain. The
two begin kissing and touching
in the back of the car, illuminated
by the bright green and red of the
traffic lights and the condensation
from the rain outside. The scene
is simultaneously sensual and
uncomfortable, as the two lovers
continue to caress to a drum-like
beat while the cab driver sits only a
few feet in front of them. As the film
within the film has no dialogue,
there is nothing to distract from
the discomfort we feel, and we are
thus forced to watch the peculiar
love scene pan out.
Though Welles’s techniques
are provocative, eye-catching and
evidently creative, for the average
audience member, establishing
a genuine connection to the film
proves
difficult.
Everything
about the film is fragmented.
The movie shown at the birthday
party is continually interrupted
by numerous power outages and
conversations between characters
at the party are constantly
cut short, making it difficult
to invest in anyone on-screen.
Additionally, there is an overall
sense of incompleteness that we
can’t help but feel, brought on
both by the scattered nature of
the filming, the incompleteness
of the screened film within the
film and the disconnect and
tension between Hannaford and
his actors. When the credits role,
we can’t help but wonder if we
should have brushed up on our
knowledge of Welles beforehand
to
make
Hannaford,
as
a
protagonist crafted in Welles’s
image, more tangible and maybe
even make the film as a whole
more enjoyable.
SAMANTHA NELSON
Daily Arts Writer
Welles’s ‘Other Side of the
Wind’ doesn’t translate
NETFLIX
FILM REVIEW
“Other Side
of the Wind”
Netflix