100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 16, 2018 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

STORAGE FOR STUDENTS
Studying abroad. Indoor, clean, safe,
closest to campus. AnnArborStorage.
com or (734)‑663‑0690.

SERVICES

Classifieds

Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com

By James Sajdak
©2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
11/16/18

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

11/16/18

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

Release Date: Friday, November 16, 2018

ACROSS
1 “__ simple, duh!”
6 Gobi container
10 Pollutants
targeted in Great
Lakes cleanups
14 “Sorry, bro”
15 Brits’ foul-weather
gear
16 Devastated sea
17 Novice hiker’s
predicament?
19 Taboo
20 DUI-fighting org.
21 Card game shout
22 Dairy prefix
23 Relief pitcher?
27 Spot for a
springbok
29 Allay
30 “Cats” source
31 Stopped working
33 Snarky retort
37 Cheshire can
38 Flipped ... and
what four puzzle
answers are?
41 Where
Charlemagne
reigned: Abbr.
42 Extended
account
44 Sources of some
barrels
45 Salty expanse
47 Boone, to his
buds
49 Put oil and
vinegar on, say
50 Showoff with
gags?
56 Swashbuckling
Flynn
57 Employ
58 “¿Cómo __?”
61 Digitize, in a way
62 Tenement for one
on the lam?
65 Director Gus
Van __
66 Barb
67 “A Fish Called
Wanda” Oscar
winner
68 Petro-Canada
competitor
69 Erelong
70 Worked with osier

DOWN
1 Cornerback’s
coups, briefly
2 One-third of a
WWII film

3 Wrapping tightly
4 Got married
5 Olive __
6 Acid type
7 Ivanhoe, e.g.
8 Post-OR stop
9 Nile biter
10 Cure-all
11 Bunch of
baloney
12 Linguistic group
that includes Zulu
13 Single-master
18 Silent
22 __ Palmas:
Canary Islands
city
24 Western tip of
Alaska
25 Closing
documents
26 Expressed, as
farewell
27 Checks out
28 Oscar-winning
director Kazan
31 Gives a hand
32 Press
34 Grad’s award
35 Nest egg
choices
36 Bogs
39 Early Atari
offering

40 __-Frank: 2010
financial reform
bill
43 Enlarge, as a
house
46 First name in
Disney villains
48 Verizon
subsidiary
50 “Siddhartha”
author
51 Black-and-white
cetaceans

52 Mission opening?
53 Supercharger
54 Steamboat
Springs
alternative
55 Fresh
59 Piece of music
60 Impersonated
62 Woods gp.
63 Strauss’ “__
Heldenleben”
64 Pedigree-tracking
org.

5A — Friday, November 16, 2018
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Imagine Dragons has, in spite

of their remarkable commercial
success, become a bit of a joke in
recent years. Their first album,
Night Visions, was pretty good, but
everything they’ve released since
has felt like the lifeless results of
a
machine-learning
algorithm

designed to appeal to people who
drink a lot of Amp. Their previous
album, Evolve, was particularly
guilty of this syndrome, sounding
like a bizarro version of Night
Visions where every song sucked.
So with Origins, I came in with
low expectations.

The first half of the album is

stronger, as Imagine Dragons
floats with ease through pop
clichés: a Phillip Phillips-esque
folk pop revival on “West Coast,”
electropop heavy with reverb
on
“Boomerang”
and
“Cool

Out” and burning arena rock
on “Machine.” By and large,
these
are
well-executed
and

pleasant, if not remarkable. Dan
Reynolds has a knack for catchy
melodies, in particular soaring
choruses. “Machine” is the best
of this specific brand of ascendant
commercial rock, a stomping

groove
inexorably
marching

towards the Billboard Top 40.
“Bad Liar” is also a pretty strong
cut, with one of the stickiest
melodies on the album.

The second half of the album

is much less enjoyable than the

first. There are some moments of
interest, but they fizzle out quickly.
There’s “Love,” whose chorus
sounds a little too similar to “I’m
Yours” by Jason Mraz (but without
the catchiness). In “Digital,” at one
point, Dan starts yelling throatily
over a hyperactive breakbeat
drum loop, a development that is
more surprising than good. At first
I thought “Burn Out” would be a
solid deep cut, and I kept waiting
for the good part to kick in; it was
only after the song ended did I
realize that, in fact, there was no
good part to be found.

Despite exceeding my low

expectations, Origins is definitely
subpar. Most of the songs on here
will work well as music in car
commercials or soundtracks to
Fortnite compilations, but don’t
have much musical value outside

of that. They suffer from the
same lifeless corporate flavor that
has been permeating Imagine
Dragons’s music since the It’s
Time (EP), but at least they seem
self-aware at this point. There’s
really no reason to go out of your
way to listen to Origins outside of a
couple of decent cuts (“Machine,”
“Bad Liar”) that you’ll probably
end up hearing anyway during an
ad for Regions Bank or something.

Imagine
Dragons
suffers

from
the
same
phenomenon

Nickelback did a decade or so
back — undeserved commercial
success has led to undeserved
critical backlash. While the music
of these bands isn’t particularly
good, the fact that they are the
prominent butt of critical derision
would make you believe they
are much worse than they really
are. Origins is commercial and
inconsequential, but it is far from
unpleasant or incompetent, and
I’ve heard much worse music from
bands that don’t get a fraction
of the hate. The average person
who doesn’t pay much attention
to music probably really likes
Imagine Dragons. To capture that
audience range takes talent, and
just because it doesn’t resonate
with snobbish critics (like me),
does not mean that it’s not of
worth.

Imagine Dragons’s latest
is unsurprisingly subpar

JONAH MENDELSON

Daily Arts Writer

INTERSCOPE RECORDS

Few shows so eloquently

straddle the boundary between
musical
and
operetta
as

“Candide,” Leonard Bernstein’s
famed adaptation of Voltaire’s
novel. This enigmatic work
of theatre was first presented
on Broadway before moving
to opera houses, in which it
has garnered great acclaim.
Initially conceived by Bernstein
and Lillian Hellman as a play
with incidental music meant
to satirize the hearings of the
House Un-American Activities
Committee, the work’s lyrics
have
since
been
modified

by Stephen Sondheim, John
LaTouche, Dorothy Parker and
Richard Wilbur.

Last weekend, “Candide” was

performed by the University
Opera
Theatre
and
the

University Symphony Orchestra
at the Power Center. It was an
enthralling journey through the
life of Candide on his lengthy
quest to marry Cunégonde. It
was also a biting satire on the
failures of organized religion,
philosophy, war, money and
socioeconomic class structure.
Despite its antiquated setting,
the work manages to remain
frighteningly
relevant.
One

can hear the echoes of modern
political
pessimism
in
the

work’s criticism of 17th and
18th century aristocratic power
structures, the cries of anti-
party rhetoric reflected in the
anti-government libretto.

After a quick introduction to

the optimism that so consumed
the philosophers of Voltaire’s
day, the operetta oscillates
between violence and lucky
escape.

To those unfamiliar with

the book, the dark humor of
this unrealistic plot can be
hard to laugh at. Candide and
his childhood friends travel all
over the world, finding each
other in the most unexpected
of places and avoiding death
by the narrowest of means.
I found myself struggling to
laugh with some members of
the audience at the first scene
of mass casualty before I, too,

understood
the
unrealistic

humor of this perpetual death
and violence.

In the end, as the pace of the

story slowed, the emotional
poignancy began to overtake
the dark humor. The final
scene, in which Candide and
Cunégonde agree to marry
and to plant a garden together,
was beautifully complex and
emotionally ambiguous. “Life is
neither good nor bad,” the choir
sings. “Life is life, and all we
know.”

After this lengthy journey

of faulty belief systems and

strikingly immoral systems of
cultural morality, the realist,
almost nihilist simplicity of this
resolution was astounding. The
audience sat with rapt attention
as Candide and Cunégonde
exchanged promises to “do the
best” they know in cultivating
their garden and living a simple,
agrarian life.

The simple ingenuity of the

set contributed both to the
fleeting absurdity of the plot
and the poignant simplicity
of the resolution. The entire
operetta took place in front
of a giant blackboard upon
which Candide’s journey was
illustrated in chalk. Smaller
wheelable
blackboards

and
simple
wooden
tables

formed the changing scenery
throughout
the
production

while
tablet-sized
handheld

blackboards formed the props.
These handheld blackboards
frequently contributed to the
humor with characters on stage

reacting in fright to blackboards
with “GUN” written on them.
In the end, as Candide and
Cunégonde decide to pursue a
simple lifestyle, the blackboard
in the back of the stage was
erased and the tabletops were
removed to uncover small, lush
gardens.

The
cast
was
quite

impressive. They demonstrated
the ease at which they sing
English-language opera, and
I found myself particularly
impressed with the expressive
singing of Candide and the
colatura abilities of Cunégonde.

With
great
choreography

and
significant
dialogue,
I

began to question whether
this was not better classified
as a musical than an operetta.
Bernstein’s career was based
on the blending of genres: from
the harmonic dissonance and
operatic treatment of “West Side
Story” to the popular influences
in much of his concert music.
And this work was no exception,
with Bernstein jumping from
dissonant incidental music to
operatic arias and Broadway-
esque slow musical numbers.

I am always skeptical of

movies and plays based on
famous novels. To this end, I
will admit that I was incredibly
skeptical of Bernstein’s decision
to adapt Voltaire’s novel. It
would be hard, I thought, for the
operetta to not be overshadowed
by this incredibly influential
novel. And though the overture
is a staple of the American-
composed concert repertoire,
I had assumed that there was
a reason I was unfamiliar with
the operetta.

Yet despite my skepticism,

the operetta lived up to the
famed book after which it is
based. Much like the book, it
is a compelling criticism of
wealth, power, religion and
other constructs of cultural
morality.
And
nothing
felt

more appropriate than the final
words of the play, when Voltaire
asks the audience if they have
“Any questions?” For what is
“Candide” if not a call for the
audience to question, a proto-
Nietzschean condemnation of
current belief systems in favor
of a new belief system?

Origins

Imagine Dragons

Interscope Records

ALBUM REVIEW

Britney Spears will always be

an object of fascination for me.
Every time I go down a YouTube
rabbit hole during slow nights
in the comfort of my room, I
always end up in the same place,
watching early-aughts music
videos until the sun comes up.
From the fringed crop tops of
Christina
Aguilera’s
“Genie

in a Bottle” to the motorized
pianos of Vanessa Carlton’s “A
Thousand Miles,” the era is
truly iconic in the span of starlet
culture as a whole. But there’s
one video, Spears’s “Lucky,” that
has stamped itself permanently
in the history of pop music. The
first time I watched it, deep
into one of these binge video
consumptions,
I
was
taken

aback. It seems as if Spears had
predicted her downfall seven
years in the future, a toxic mix
of fame and negligence that
would result in drastic change.

The lyrics of “Lucky” serve

as a bizarre look into the future
of Spears’s career, and the video
echoes this even more. The
starlet looks on at a fictionalized
version of herself, reaching out
to a depressed Lucky as she
puts on a smile for the cameras
and cries until she falls asleep.
Lucky is constantly looking into
this tiny mirror throughout the
video, trying to primp herself
while sadness lurks behind
her eyes. Though the song is
supposedly a universal story of
the dangers of fame, it seems
to prophesize about Spears’s
own breakdown in 2007, one
that would be immortalized
in pop culture forever. We’ve
all seen the photos of her post-
buzzcut, of her walking around
looking like a shell of herself as
she reeled in the wake of losing
custody of her children and an
extreme downturn of her career.
“If Britney survived 2007, you
can survive today” is a sassy quip
printed onto stickers and resting
at the bottom of Instagram

posts. But underneath “Lucky”
and Spears’s story at large is the
sad reality behind Hollywood’s
treatment of young starlets, a
history that has affected women
in the industry for decades.

Though I was slightly too

young to understand Britney
Spears’s downfall and rebound
in its full glory, people like
Miley Cyrus and Lindsay Lohan
served as examples of starlet
culture and its dangers as I grew
up. In fact, I wasn’t even allowed
to listen to Britney as a kid

because of how sexualized she
was in the public eye, a pretty
and perfect vision of feminine
youth that found its way into the
realm of Barbies and lunchboxes
alike. My mother said that “Hit
Me Baby One More Time” was
vulgar for a six-year-old to be
singing, and though I was angry
at the time, I now agree with
her in some ways. Our culture
of idealism around these young
girls forced them into boxes that
were unrealistic and dangerous,
placing them on a pedestal that
was only waiting to crumble. In
the past five years, many of the
starlets of my childhood faced
their own 2007s, trying to shed
their sweetheart images with
varying levels of success.

I can remember when Miley

Cyrus
was
photographed

shirtless for Vanity Fair at 15,

when she released “Can’t Be
Tamed,” a video in which she
prowls around a cage in skimpy,
feathered clothing, when she
danced around at the VMAs in
nude spandex. I feel the same way
about Cyrus’s reevolution that I
do about that of Spears, both of
them now seemingly happy and
stable despite their struggles
with fame. But there are those
who weren’t so “Lucky” after
all. Amanda Bynes’s battle with
mistreatment by the industry
and those around her resulted
in a complete loss of self for the
star. The fame machine sucks in
and spits out young girls without
giving them a note of how to
navigate any of it all, and has
since the days of Judy Garland.
While money and power can
come with the visibility of being
a starlet, many of these girls
lost themselves in that pursuit,
groomed by handlers to remain
marketable as they battled to
form strong identities.

We have no way of knowing

if Britney Spears really felt
the way that the character in
“Lucky” does, but it’s easy to
believe that she may have. “If
there’s nothing missing in my
life / Then why do these tears
come at night?” she sings during
the chorus, with the kind of
bravado that seems true under
the surface. At face value, the
song
and
its
accompanying

video is a formulated example of
pop perfection, but underneath
it serves as a message of reality
to what stardom’s consequences
can bring. She might be lucky,
but there’s something else there,
lurking just under a pearly
smile and immaculate makeup.
As Hollywood slowly becomes
more self aware, there’s a chance
for more young girls to grow up
famous and not fall apart. But
for now, the lessons of Spears’s
2000 song ring true: Even if you
have everything, being a starlet
is not all it’s chalked up to be.

She’s so lucky

DAILY GENDER & MEDIA COLUMN

CLARA
SCOTT

University Symphony’s
‘Candide’ scarily timeless

CONCERT REVIEW

SAMMY SUSSMAN

Daily Arts Writer

Despite its
antiquated
setting, the

work manages

to remain

frighteningly

relevant

Back to Top

© 2025 Regents of the University of Michigan