6 — Friday, September 20, 2019
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Classifieds
Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com
FACULTY COUPLE SEEKING
Jr., sr., or grad student as study helper
for 19‑year‑old dyslexic daughter. 2‑3
days/week, max 10 hours, $15/hour,
flexi
bleschedule.
Email tareid458@gmail.com
NEW HEALTH DISEASE‑related
ChemicalbeingtestedbyOregon,
UBC Argentina & Mexico. Chemical
has 4 re
lated USA Patents, and is also
approved for removing lead etc. from
water.Toorderabook,see
www.holistichydrogensulfide.com
HELP WANTED
ANNOUNCEMENT
By Kathy Wienberg and Lewis Rothlein
©2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
09/20/19
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
09/20/19
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
Release Date: Friday, September 20, 2019
ACROSS
1 “... harmony
in the motion
and magnitude
of the __ ... ”:
Copernicus
5 Out, perhaps
9 Maintain
14 Stable newborn
15 Particle in a
beam
16 Lifetime parent
17 Asian tourist city
18 Initial game
payment
19 Lengthy sentence
20 What included
a top hat, for
Lincoln?
23 Prohibition __
24 Support gp.
founded under
FDR
25 Like Yosemite’s
El Capitan
26 Unvarnished
inventions?
31 P&L report
column
32 Symbol of ease
33 Part of a baby’s
repertoire
34 Stops lying?
37 One often stands
alone in a split
38 Devote, as time
40 Gp. inducted into
the Rock and Roll
Hall of Fame in
2017
41 They’re often
seen on trees
42 Disposed of
43 Citi Field
catcalls?
48 “The Night
They Invented
Champagne”
composer
49 Mentalist Geller
50 Sch. in
Manhattan
53 Joe-induced
speaking clarity?
57 Get around
58 Food stamp?
59 67, for
Beethoven’s Fifth
60 Invisible turnout?
61 Unlikely
62 Olive Oyl’s
mother
63 Wound up
64 Goes after
65 Go around in
circles?
DOWN
1 18 or 21, typically
2 Court rival of
Rafael
3 Bill for shots
4 Picket fence
piece
5 Assembled
6 Small chocolate-
covered candy
7 Classic
accusation
8 Moccasin leather
9 Asked for ID
10 Victory wreath
11 Lestat de
Lioncourt creator
12 Promises at the
altar
13 YMCA part
21 Mongolian tents
22 Butter used
to deep-fry
samosas
27 Agreement word
28 Mimicry
29 Geological time
span
30 Scandinavian
roofing material
34 Whistle-blower
35 Down with the flu
36 Deep South
cuisine
37 Pesto ingredients
38 Poker-faced
39 Nave seat
41 New Zealand
bird
42 Reception aids
44 1959 Fiestas hit
45 Followed
46 Confused mess
47 Ubiquitous
YouTube button
... and a hint to
four long Across
answers
51 Squeak or creak
52 Take back
53 Prop for Chaplin
54 The Bard’s river
55 Biblical hunter
56 Atmosphere
It’s interesting to me how the “love letter” analogy is tossed
around by critics. Sometimes, it’s called for. Hanif Abdurrqib
writes a love letter to A Tribe Called Quest in “Go Ahead in
the Rain.” Damian Chazelle writes a love letter to Los Angeles
in “La La Land.” Other times, however, it can be used to justify
disfigurations of love and, untimately, conceal their harm.
Recently, it has been invoked in misguided praise of Quentin
Tarantino’s three-hour, mostly meandering but ultimately
vindictive opus, “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.”
The film does not exactly have a premise; rather, it drifts from
(white) Hollywood figure to figure. Instead of a liberating drift,
though, these lengthy, indulgent scenes mire each character in
discomfiting fantasies of their director. Tarantino’s Sharon Tate
(Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”) is a ditzy starlet who goes to a theater
and enjoys watching herself play the sexist part she got in a movie.
Tarantino’s Bruce Lee (Mike Moh, “Empire”) gets his ass kicked
by a white, widowed stunt man (Brad Pitt, “Deadpool 2”), and it’s
extra vindicating because Tarantino portrays Lee as a boastful,
overrated martial artist. Did I say widower? The stunt man, Cliff
Booth, is also suspected of killing his wife, but she was rude to
him in a flashback, so Tarantino’s justice is that the stunt man
probably got to take out his wife for free.
Still, this is a Tarantino film, so instead of even looking for a
premise, let’s instead call it his “excuse for a violent climax.” In
“Once Upon a Time,” that excuse is the haphazard interweaving
of the Manson Family, partway into the backdrop, partway into
the secondary cast. In a single scene that contains the violence
Tarantino usually seems to prefer to distribute more evenly
throughout his films, the two stars of the film, Booth and Rick
Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio, “The Revenant”), are attacked by
Manson Family members, but in Tarantino’s reimagining —
complete with death-by-flamethrower — the (white) Hollywood
guys win. That seems to be the ultimate, gruesome and vindictive
point Tarantino is making. What does that leave the audience
with, or Hollywood with, aside from a lust for violence and the
unchecked ways of Hollywood’s past?
I don’t know if Hollywood wants to be avenged, and even less
sure that it needs to be avenged. What it needs much more than
vindication or even love is renewal. “Once Upon a Time” doesn’t
offer that, or anything more than its director’s problematic
fantasies.
— Julianna Morano
Over the course of my time at The Daily, I’ve reviewed a lot
of lower quality Netflix films. As cringe-inducing and painful as
some of these new releases about high school antics and poorly
executed heists can be, I would opt to watch them all on repeat
if it meant erasing the trainwreck that was “Once Upon a Time
in Hollywood” from my memory. I’ve always prided myself on
the fact that I’ve never walked out of a theater in the middle of
a movie. Watching “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” was the
first time I wish I did. No amount of over-buttered popcorn or
Twizzlers could have amended my movie-going experience.
Despite having two dynamite, A-list actors at his disposal,
Tarantino’s picture flounders. As a former die-hard (now tempered)
Leonardo Dicaprio fan, you can imagine my disappointment when
his character, Rick Dalton, turns out to be a dull paperdoll of a
man. A reflection of the movie as a whole, Dalton is straight up
boring, minimally developed and has no real chemistry with his
co-star Brad Pitt. I get that the late ’60s music, street children
and druggie vibes were reminiscent of a romanticized decade,
but that sort of nostalgia simply is not enough to carry a whole
film. I’d perk up at every glimpse of a turning point, only to be let
down again and again when no forward momentum was maide.
I’m traditionally a fan of Tarantino’s non-linear filming style, but
there are far too many pieces in “Once Upon a Time” left not only
unconnected, but permanently unresolved.
If you’re going to make a mind-numbingly boring movie, at
least have the courtesy to make it brief. “Once Upon a Time in
Hollywood” spans close to three hours. And we are aware of
every minute passing (really though, I checked my phone more
times than I’m proud to admit). If you have intentions of seeing
Tarantino’s latest flick, tread lightly. The sea of rave reviews
deceived me, and you may fall destined for a similar fate.
— Samantha Nelson
Rarely do I change my opinion on a movie. While that may
not be the most constructive way to critique films, it’s honest.
My gut reaction to “Once Upon a Time” was total disinterest. I
found the first two hours of the film to be unbelievably boring, to
a degree that completely shocked me. I’ve felt a lot of things while
watching films by Quentin Tarantino, but never boredom. The last
act of the film, which has been praised for its shock and audacity,
entertained me in the moment, but left me feeling “so what” by the
time the credits rolled.
I’m about to sound hypocritical given I just said I don’t often
change my views on movies, but “Once Upon a Time” has caused
me to re-evaluate my entire relationship with Quentin Tarantino.
As a young adult I loved his films. I thought they were funny,
clever and exciting. But that feeling of “so what” that haunted
me after I watched an alternative history in which Sharon Tate is
never killed and the Manson murders never happen slowly began
to extend to the rest of the Tarantino canon. You can make movies
where Jews get to kill Hitler and Jamie Foxx gets to shoot up racist
slave owners. But so what? Yeah, it would be nice if a lot of the
bad shit that’s happened over the course of world history didn’t
happen. But it did. I’m still working through what that means;
more specifically, that I don’t think Tarantino movies “mean”
anything. Maybe that’s fine. Maybe just being entertaining is
enough. But in an increasingly complicated world, I don’t know
how much room we still have to enjoy uncomplicated catharsis.
— Ian Harris
Three critical takes on Quentin Taratino’s ‘Once
Upon a Time in Hollywood.’ TL;DR: not good.
FILM: ROUNDTABLE REVIEW
JULIANNA MORANO
Daily Arts Writer
COLUMBIA PICTURES
COLUMBIA PICTURES
SAMANTHA NELSON
Daily Arts Writer
IAN HARRIS
Daily Arts Writer
I get that the late ’60s
music, street children
and druggie vibes
were reminiscent
of a romanticized
decade, but that sort
of nostalgia simply is
not enough to carry a
whole film.
When I had the opportunity to see “Wicked” on
Broadway again this summer, I didn’t expect the
piece to strike me differently than my previous
viewings. My preconceived thought: Once you
learn all the lyrics, have a vague awareness of
the blocking and have each costume memorized
there’s no room for surprise, right? Wrong.
“Wicked” is more than a tourist attraction and an
entertaining spectacle — it is a call to action.
I used to leave the Broadway smash hit out of my
favorite musical list whenever someone asked. It
felt cliché for someone who loves musical theatre
as much as I do to admit that my favorite musical
isn’t some niche, hipster, singer-songwriter
Broadway musical that nobody has ever heard of.
“Wicked” is the story of the land of Oz before
Dorothy and the yellow brick road. It follows
brazen, emerald skinned Elphaba, an astute,
misunderstood young woman sent to boarding
school to look after her sister, wheelchair-bound
Nessarose. In an unlikely turn of events, she falls
into a friendship with bubbly girly-girl Glinda
and the two go on a journey together through
the world as they know it, working for the world
Elphaba hopes Oz will become. “Wicked” is a
whirlwind of emotions and manages to land
humor, heartbreak, feminism and friendship all
within the span of two hours and 45 minutes. It
is also the first Broadway show that ever left me
speechless — a difficult feat to accomplish.
The first time I saw the show was in 2006 with
my mother in Philadelphia. At the age of seven, I’d
been exclusively listening to the CD soundtrack
since I’d received it for Christmas. We drove to
Philadelphia and played the soundtrack twice
through on our way there, singing along and
swapping roles in our two-woman production. I
can’t remember the experience of seeing the show,
but I remember walking to the bathroom with my
mom after the curtain call. She was sobbing. The
piece had emotionally affected my mother, a 33
year old woman, to the point of tears, and I didn’t
understand if they stemmed from sadness or from
wonder. Afterward, I asked her if I was Elphaba
or Glinda, hoping she’d tell me I was the beautiful
blonde with the sparkly bubble and pink glittering
gowns. Instead, she told me I was Elphaba: smart,
fearless, brave and filled with heart. As a seven
year old concerned mostly with exterior image, I
was disappointed that my mother didn’t see me as
the “popular” good witch whom everyone adored.
When I saw it most recently this July, 14
years later, I brought new experiences and
pieces of my ever forming identity with me.
“Wicked” revealed itself as my favorite musical —
unabashedly, without a shadow of a doubt. In its
simplest reading, “Wicked” is about a young girl
who does not fit into a society because she looks
different than the majority. When you look past
the dazzling production numbers, immaculate
set and intricate costumes, the plight of Elphaba
can be compared to the wider sociopolitical
sphere in the United States and our individual
stories as well. In the Gershwin theatre this July,
in a country where slews of racist, homophobic,
xenophobic and sexist things happened just that
day, I realized the necessity and urgency under
the glamour of this piece of theatre.
“Wicked” is about love, yes, a heterosexual
relationship between a cisgender man and a
cisgender woman. But it is about more than that.
It is about a female friendship, a friendship that
pushes itself to the limits and almost flounders
more than once. The book is genius as it sets
up Elphaba and Glinda to careen into the catty
stereotype of fighting over a man, a common
trope both on stage and in film. But instead of this
man, Fiyero, destroying their relationship and
showcasing both leading ladies as airy half shells
of female characters, his character is a device in
making their friendship a feminist relationship.
Glinda urges Fiyero to leave her to be with
Elphaba. She does this because she recognizes
that her love for Fiyero pales in comparison to her
desire for both Elphaba and Fiyero to be happy.
Her mature choice to walk away from Fiyero so
that her best friend can be happy and pursue her
dreams makes her the hero of the story. In Glinda
I see my mother, I see all of the female friends who
have put me before themselves, I see the women
who have become my sisters, who have changed
my life for good.
A most ‘Wicked’ summer
ELI RALLO
Daily Arts Writer
COMMUNITY CULTURE NOTEBOOK
Read more at
MichiganDaily.com