The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Friday, October 11, 2019 — 5

For countless women, there aren’t many 
things in everyday life scarier than walking 
home alone at night. Fear of the dark and 
the evil that lurks there is built into us from 
the moment we become conscious of what 
it really means to be a woman. “Night” is 
synonymous with violence, assault, crimes 
that go undetected, the menacing power of 
the uninhibited male gaze. We are constantly 
bombarded by news stories of horrific sexual 
violence, usually carried out during the 
night, simply because there are less people 
to witness it and less light to illuminate it. 
Perhaps the scariest thing of all, though, is 
that we’ve been taught to think that all of 
this is normal, that outside at night is simply 
not a place where we are welcome. We build 
our days around our commutes, making sure 
that we won’t have to walk home, alone, in 
the dark. 
Because this is the world we live in, there’s 
something profoundly and oddly inspiring 
about “A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night,” 
Ana Lily Amirpour’s 2014 Persian-language 
vampire western film, whose nameless 
protagonist is a woman (Sheila Vand, “Argo”) 
who walks the night streets of the fictional 
and aptly-named Bad City not in fear, but in 
strength. Though she murders many, using 
her beauty to lure men closer to her only to 
take their lives with her poisonous fangs, I 
can’t help but admire her. She is, after all, 
the only person truly willing to defend the 
women she lives among. She patrols the 

streets like a police officer, looking out for 
violent altercations and later punishing the 
culprits. She stalks these men and makes 
them know how it feels to be a woman at 
night. She makes them afraid to hurt another 
woman again.
Women are afraid of men, men are afraid 
of women. Does this have to be the case? 
How do we possibly trust each other while 
carrying all of this fear? 
“A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night” hints 
at the possibility of transcending this mutual 
fear in order to achieve true intimacy. In the 
film’s best scene, the nameless vampire and 
a man she’s come to know (Arash Marandi, 
“Under the Shadow”) share a moment of real 
vulnerability. She lifts his head to expose 
his neck and he lets her, unaware of her true 
nature. She’s just about to sink her teeth 
into him until at last she decides to rest her 
head on his chest and listen to his heart beat 
instead. Rather than take his life, she spares 
it and listens to it beat inside of him with 
adoration. She is afraid of how much she 
likes him, amazed by how close she can be to 
someone without killing them. 
“A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night” 
doesn’t have the answers to my questions. 
I’m not sure anyone does. But it does bring 
our suspicions and our fears about our world 
and about each other closer to the surface, 
unearthing them from the recesses of our 
mind where we keep the thoughts we aren’t 
supposed to have but have nonetheless. It 
reminds us of just how much there is to be 
afraid of and just how hard it is to fully trust 
another person, whether we care to admit it 
or not.

‘Girl Walks Home Alone’
and our culture of fear

SAMMY SUSSMAN
Daily Arts Writer

As I entered the Arthur Miller Theater for the 
Department of Theatre & Drama’s production of “Sense 
and Sensibility,” I’ll admit that I was skeptical. Could a Jane 
Austen novel really be adapted for the stage? Could this 
reserved book from 1811 really be adapted into a modern 
theatrical work?
By the end of the second scene, however, the production 
had alleviated my fears. As the audience was seated, the 
cast walked onto the stage in various stages of partial dress. 
As they donned their formal dresses and tied their ties, the 
audience was treated to casual, conversational 19th-century 
British English. After this setting was established, it was 
just as quickly discarded — modern pop music blared from 
the speakers, and the cast danced around the stage. 
This juxtaposition was jarring at first, and I was laughing 
at the production (as opposed to with the production) at 
the beginning of this dance number. But once I suspended 
my disbelief and bought into this premise, the play was 
remarkably consistent in not venturing beyond it. Though 
it took a little while, I was soon fully entrenched in this 
historical British society full of contemporary humorous 
interjections.
Director Priscilla Lindsay’s successful juxtaposition 
between plot and humor was mirrored by the inherent 
juxtaposition between (what I assume to be) historically 
accurate costumes and jarringly modern sets; men in 
morning dress and women in fancy gowns sitting in front 
of empty window frames and wooden chairs on wheels. 
In perhaps my favorite moment of the whole show, a table 
covered in a white sheet, turned on its shorter side, became 
an upright bed in which characters slept.
Much of the humor in the show came from The Gossips, 
a group of actors that comment on the action on stage 
without taking part in it. This humor was physical at times 
and more sophisticated at others. I never thought I’d see 
humans acting as horses and dogs in the middle of a Jane 

Austen story, but somehow it succeeded. They managed to 
interject contemporary humor and a modern perspective 
throughout.
The central plot, on the other hand, was a little harder 
to stomach. While this adaptation did much to address 
some basic problems resulting in the transition from novel 
to stage, some shortcomings were still present, including 
the circuitous, flowery nature of speech and plot at the 
time, the relative passivity of the female characters and the 
shallowness of their relationships.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I 
was not particularly familiar with this novel before I saw 
the play. I’d imagine that the experience was quite different 
for those who knew what to expect. But as a relatively 
unsuspecting audience member, I found it hard, at times, to 
connect with the characters and their desires. 
Though the humor was incredibly entertaining, as were 
the beginning and closing portions of each act, I found 
myself wishing for a little more concision in some of the 
middle numbers. This is no fault of the cast — they did 
much to enliven this sections and give emotional gravitas 
to situations in which little textual emotion was to be found 
— but I think it was a clear, if relatively minor, flaw in the 
adaptation.
That being said, I couldn’t have been more impressed 
with the cast. Their British accents were more than 
convincing, as were their 19th century mannerisms. And 
though I wouldn’t think I’d be able to relate much to these 
seemingly antiquated figures, I found myself moved by 
their struggles and touched by their resolutions. Even as I 
was rooting for the female characters to have more agency 
in rejecting marriage as their only source of happiness, I 
was admittedly touched when they managed to find love in 
these relationships.
All in all, it was a funny, thought-provoking take on 
a historically dated story, an unexpectedly entertaining 
modernization of a seminal piece of British literature. And 
it was a testament to the talent of those in the Department 
of Theatre & Drama that they were able to take this 
adaptation and make it entertaining. 

A new take on ‘Sensibility’

ELISE GODFRYD
Daily Arts Writer

COMMUNITY CULTURE REVIEW

“Big Mouth” is back and more cringe-inducing than 
ever. The raunchy Netflix cartoon series returns strong 
in its third season with its signature disgusting-yet-
heartwarming humor and charm.
Following a group of pubescent seventh graders, 
“Big Mouth” explores the inherent humiliation and 
horror of the American middle school. This season’s 
premiere picks up directly after the events of the show’s 
Valentine’s Day special with Andrew Glouberman 
(John Mulaney, “Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse”) 
returning to school after attacking one of his classmates 
because of a rejection from his ex-girlfriend, Missy 
(Jenny Slate, “Obvious Child). This embarrassing and 
surprisingly violent outburst has left Andrew an outcast 
at his school and, because of a viral video of the incident, 
a popular online livestreamer. 
As Andrew struggles to learn how to redeem himself, 
an accident in woodshop leaves him unintentionally 
maimed by another boy who lost focus staring at a 
female classmate’s revealing tank top. The girls are then 
issued a restrictive dress code to avoid “distracting” the 
boys any further. In protest, Jessi (Jessi Klein, “Inside 
Amy Schumer”) and the rest of Bridgeton Middle’s 
female students stage an impromptu “Slut Walk” with 
their most provocative clothing and demand the boys 
be held accountable for their actions, despite their 
teachers’s assertions that “boys are animals.” After a 
brief uniform policy is enforced, the girls win their right 
to dress however they want and teach the boys a lesson 
on self-control and toxic masculinity. 
While the episode ends on a victorious note, it’s 
worth noting a disturbing subplot that finds Andrew 
delving into the world of incels. As Andrew siphons his 
anger toward the girls at school into his online rants, 
he catches the attention of a “Men for Equality” group 
that invites him to one of their meetings. Upon arriving, 
Andrew finds the club is actually full of white male 
supremacists whose neo-Nazi views shock the Jewish 
teenager into fleeing from both the meeting and his own 
journey toward a similar mindset. Andrew confides in 
his best friend, Nick (Nick Kroll, “The Addams Family”) 
that “I don’t want to have hate in my heart” and begins 

making amends to his fellow students. Andrew and the 
other boys have learned, through a series of musical 
numbers and cartoon hijinks, that maybe the girls they 
go to school with don’t exist just to be stared at.
“Big Mouth” as a whole can be summed up in one 
line Jessi delivers in the premiere. When faced with the 
confusing standards women face and difficulties men 
have understanding that struggle, she says “I think it 
might just be this long conversation we all have to keep 
having!” This unfortunately frustrating sentiment 
voices the truth that, though there might not be an 
easy or right way to approach discourses on gender and 
sexuality, it’s worth trying your best. 
However admirable this message is, the Season 3 
premiere abandons the show’s more cynical elements 
and opts for a resolution so hopeful it feels almost 
ridiculous, and not in the fun kind of way the show 
usually excels in. While the harassment the girls receive 
from their teachers, parents and peers is as accurate as 
it is hard to watch, the storybook ending of Jessi and 
company securing a feminist victory in their community 
just isn’t how these situations usually play out. 

Because the show’s target audience is undoubtedly 
adults and not the age group depicted in the series, there 
feels like a disconnect between an honest portrayal of 
middle school life and storylines that will comfort 
their audience of more liberal young people. A group 
of seventh graders successfully rejecting extremism 
or sympathetically listening to each other’s feelings, at 
best, seems wildly optimistic and, at worst, pandering. 
“Big Mouth” may be looking at America’s future 
through rose-colored and X-rated glasses, but even 
with its idealistic opening, the show remains hilarious, 
insightful and beautifully crude. Here’s hoping the 
changes at Bridgeton Middle are felt in the real world 
too. For a dirty cartoon, it certainly knows how hard it 
is to grow up.

‘Big Mouth’ returns strong

ANYA SOLLER
For The Daily

NETFLIX
In the past 10 days, the NBA has become 
embroiled in a PR war with the Chinese 
government, video game developer Blizzard 
banned a player for showing solidarity with 
the people of Hong Kong and South Park was 
erased from existence within the digital walls 
of China. In an increasingly connected world of 
global entertainment, is it fair for consumers to 
judge companies for kowtowing to the demands 
of governments that they don’t support? How far 
should entertainment conglomerates go in order 
to get into the Chinese marketplace? Is there a 
line at which consumers and corporations alike 
should say enough is enough?
Most American citizens probably didn’t grow 
up thinking much about Hong Kong or the 
socio-political ramifications of its “one country 
— two systems” relationship with mainland 
China. I know I didn’t. It wasn’t something 
that was taught in school, it wasn’t a part of 
world history that was treated as significant 
for American students. The euro-centric view 
through which world politics and history are 
taught has been expounded upon to death in 
other places, so I won’t waste time re-hashing 
it here. What I will say is that even up to today 
I never thought much of the situation in Hong 
Kong besides “bad things are happening there” 
until a former co-worker of mine from summer 
camp posted on our old staff Facebook page. A 
Hong Kong native, he expressed his fear about 
what was happening in his country and reached 
out asking for prayers, help and a promise that 
we would help him raise awareness of what was 
happening. This column is my way of doing that. 
Over the weekend, Houston Rockets manager 
Daryl Morey tweeted an image that said “Fight 
for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” Though 
the tweet was soon deleted, it has created an 
uproar in both China and the United States. 
Chinese broadcasters soon announced they 
would drop Rockets pre-season games from 
their channels, the NBA commissioner flip-
flopped back and forth over what to say in 
response, and a consensus of social outrage has 
emerged from Americans upset that one of their 
nations most popular sports leagues would bend 
to the whims of what is essentially a country 
in thrall to a dictator. Blizzard, the company 
behind games like “World of Warcraft,” 
banned a player for publicly supporting Hong 
Kong protestors and was met with a wave of 

#BoycotBlizzard pronouncements across the 
internet. South Park responded to being banned 
in China by continuing to mock the Chinese 
government. Which of these responses was the 
right one?
While many have come out against the NBA 
for attempting to protect their business interests 
in China over their employees’s right to free 
speech, few have batted an eye at the ways in 
which Disney and other media conglomerates 
have sought to appease the Chinese government 
and marketplace over the past few years. For 
years rumors have abounded that the reason 
why there hasn’t yet been an LGBTQ+ character 
introduced in a mainline Marvel or Star Wars 
movie is because Disney is afraid of how such a 
character would be perceived in China. This year 
the Chinese box office is expected to outstrip 
the USA as the largest film market in the world. 
Movies that bomb in America are now counting 
on making up that money overseas, particularly 
in China. But the Chinese government over 
the past two decades has slowly tightened 
the noose on freedom of expression, meaning 
that for domestic entertainment products to 
successfully export themselves they must also 
censor themselves in the process. This is a 
country that banned Winnie the Pooh because 
there were memes floating around of the 
President of the Communist Party that looked 
sorta like Winnie the Pooh. This is what the 
NBA is dealing with. Is it right to let a country 
that is violently putting down protests in Hong 
Kong every single weekend dictate the terms 
upon which American entertainment should be 
made?
Money drives everything in this country and 
has for a long time. To demand that Disney or 
the NBA or Blizzard not do business in China 
would accomplish almost nothing. Apple, Nike, 
Adidas and dozens of other countries also rely 
on the Chinese market for huge portions of 
their revenue. They aren’t just going to stop 
selling products in every country with policies 
Americans don’t agree with. But more can be 
done to prevent their own employees’ freedoms 
being rolled over in the process. The Rockets 
GM should be able to tweet his feelings about 
a totalitarian government that is actively 
harming its own citizens and he should not be 
punished for doing so. If we can’t protect that 
much, if we can’t protect our own freedoms of 
speech from countries and groups that would 
seek to silence us, then it doesn’t matter what 
happens politically in these fifty states because 
we’ll have already lost where it counts.

Showdown: Entertainment
versus Communist Party

IAN HARRIS
Daily Entertainment Columnist

ENTERTAINMENT COLUMN

PETER SMITH PHOTOGRAPHY

Big Mouth

Season 3 Premiere

Netflix

VICE FILMS

FILM NOTEBOOK

TV REVIEW

