2-News

12 — Wednesday, September 16, 2020
the b-side
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

THE B-SIDE: CITIES
Why setting is so important in film

When I tell people around here that I’m from 

Seattle, we often end up talking about one of the 
following: Microsoft or Amazon (or people they 
know that work there), rain or “Grey’s Anatomy.” 
No one seems to know anything about Seattle 
beyond the basics. And over time, as I’ve watched 
films that are set in Seattle, it feels the same — 
like no one really knows what they’re talking 
about. It never feels quite right, no matter how 
many Seattle sports references or aerial shots of 
the skyline they include.

I’ve never understood why anyone wouldn’t 

want to use Seattle as a setting — Are the trees too 
green? Is the water too blue? Are the mountains 
too beautiful? — but the reality is that, compared 
to cities like New York, Chicago and L.A., there 
are few mainstream films set in Seattle. Most of 
them didn’t start getting made until the 1990s, 
when grunge and Nirvana got the rest of the 
country’s attention and people started to realize 
that Seattle is a pretty cool place. Still, they’re 
often not quite right. We’re happy to claim these 
movies — “Sleepless in Seattle,” “10 Things I 
Hate About You,” “Say Anything” and more — 
but it’s also difficult not to notice, at the same 
time, when a city layout that you know intimately 
is being shifted for the film’s purposes.

Setting is crucial in film. It establishes 

essential character traits, external and internal 
alike. But with many films, including many of 
the Seattle-based films I’ve seen, it feels like 
the writers picked the film’s location out of a 
hat. They pepper in major tourist landmarks 
and design their costumes for the area’s general 
climate, but the story could really be anywhere. 
For Seattle-based films, this means establishing 
location by showing a few of the landmarks 
that people actually know: the Space Needle, 
Pike Place Market, the Washington State 
ferries, the Space Needle again, the stadiums 
and skyscrapers downtown, the Puget Sound 
waterfront and the Space Needle one more time 
for good measure.

To be fair, there are complications to filming 

in Seattle proper: It can be difficult and very 
expensive, which is why many Seattle movies 
opt to film in California or Vancouver, BC 
instead. Still, it feels lazy. The unfortunate thing 
is that people don’t usually notice the difference; 
anyone who isn’t from the area has no way of 
knowing that those two neighborhoods aren’t 
anywhere near each other, or that the weather is 
way too nice for May in Seattle. 

There are a few exceptions to this: “Sleepless 

in Seattle,” for example. Seattle natives love 
“Sleepless” for the most part — it’s one of the few 
Seattle-based movies that are actually filmed 
in the city, and its use of a houseboat means 
that the film is filled with lovely images of Lake 
Union and downtown. Another is “10 Things I 

Hate About You,” which prominently features 
places like Kerry Park, Gas Works Park and the 
Fremont Troll — places that Seattle natives know 
very well even if outsiders might not recognize 
them.

But these films aren’t perfect either. A good 

chunk of “10 Things” is actually filmed in Tacoma 
(a city just south of Seattle, about twice the size 
of Ann Arbor), and some of what’s filmed on site 
is actually compilations of multiple locations. 
Not to mention the notoriously inaccurate scene 
in “Sleepless” where Tom Hanks’s character and 
his son inexplicably take a rowboat from Lake 
Union to Alki Beach while Meg Ryan’s character 
follows them in her car — a geographically 
impossible scenario, especially in the short 
amount of time that it appears to take. This scene, 
and its blatant disregard for the city’s geographic 
reality, has been mocked by Seattleites for almost 
three decades.

Part of the disconnect stems from the fact 

that these filmmakers are rarely from the area 
at all. They don’t have the same respect for the 
city’s structure and layout; to them, it’s just a 
place where their movie is set rather than a city 
that has been in existence for 150 years. For 
example, Cameron Crowe made the choice in 
“Say Anything” to illogically place a “Welcome 
to Seattle” sign on the Lakeview Boulevard 
overpass — a bridge right in the middle of the 
city, far from city limits. In his mind, he could do 
that — clearly, he saw the city as a world whose 
reality he could shape for his own purposes.

The reality is that people don’t know enough 

about Seattle as a city to appreciate it. Most 
people I talk to think that rain in Seattle is 
like most other places in the US: torrential 
downpours and thunderstorms. It isn’t. Anyone 
who has lived in the Seattle area knows that 
Seattle rain is common, but gentle. And in the 17+ 
years that I’ve lived there, I’ve only witnessed 
one 
thunderstorm. 
It’s 
a 
strange 
double 

standard: people who aren’t from New York or 

L.A. somehow seem to know enough about it 
to carry on a conversation with someone who’s 
from there. Yet when I mention Seattle I get 
those same responses: Microsoft, Amazon, rain, 
“Grey’s Anatomy.”

The ways that film and place are intertwined 

warrants more attention and precision. In an 
ideal world, the city where a film is set should be 
seen as a place that the story molds to fit, rather 
than the opposite. Other films about other cities 
use it as a setting that is so inextricable from the 
story and the characters that it becomes like its 
own character. And yet films about Seattle, and 
other cities that are discussed less often, are not 
given the same treatment.

If you’ve never lived in Seattle, or even been 

there, these films probably won’t make much 
difference to you either way. But to me, it’s a 
reflection of the places that I’ve known for most 
of my life. You might see an image of the Space 
Needle; I see going to Seattle Center with my 
family, or the summer I spent working at the 
Pacific Science Center. You see the Pike Place 
Market sign; I see first-grade field trips, or forays 
into the city with my friends. You see an iconic 
green-and-white ferry; I see trips to Bainbridge 
Island to visit my aunt. You see a highway with 
the Seattle skyline above it; I see I-5 North, 
where I’ve driven and been driven hundreds of 
times. Any images of Seattle in films are going to 
be arbitrary, because you don’t know my city the 
way that I do, just as I don’t know yours.

But I think the tides are starting to change. 

People are paying more attention to Seattle — I’ve 
had a number of people mention that they would 
love to live there if given the chance. Hopefully 
soon I’ll get to see more films that show Seattle 
the way I know it, beyond that one stock image 
of the Space Needle rising over the waterfront. 
Maybe then, when I mention where I’m from, 
people will have more to say.

Daily Arts Writer Kari Anderson can be reached 

at kariand@umich.edu.

KARI ANDERSON

Daily Arts Writer

Hyphenated:

‘Bulge 
Bracket’

DAILY A/PIA ARTS COLUMN

The slang term “Bulge Bracket” generally refers to 

the largest multinational investment banks. As of July 
2020, “Bulge Bracket” additionally refers to a TVshow 
produced by Christopher Au. 

Despite its unfortunate name, “Bulge Bracket” 

introduces a relatable Asian American protagonist 
and rejects soapy genre mainstays. Unlike other 
high-stress high-drama workplace shows like “The 
Good Wife” and “Suits,” “Bulge Bracket” doesn’t 
aspire to be sexy or soapy. Sans steamy workplace 
romances, Au develops his show around stress and 
professional hurdles. By cleaving so close to reality, the 
independently produced show depicts a frighteningly 
familiar corporate grind.

Au delves into professional stresses through the 

lens of novice banker Cathy (Jessika Van, “Awkward”). 
She faces capricious bosses, frat-bro work culture and 
unhelpful HR departments. 

Though Cathy happens to be Asian, Au treats 

her as a regular character. Au acknowledges her 
Asian American-ness but thankfully dodges the 
overwhelming urge some TV producers feel to harp 
on and problematize an Asian American character’s 
ethnicity. Instead, Cathy is first and foremost a woman 
operating within a very white, institutionalized 
space. In the show, Cathy’s primary concern is not 
her Asian-ness. Rather, it’s whether sacrificing her 
health, relationships and wellbeing is worth uncertain 
professional success. 

But while not making it the center of his character 

narrative, Au does not skimp on excellent Asian 
American commentary. Through different APIA 
(Asian and Pacific Islander American) characters, Au 
shows that Asian-American-ness is an ethnic umbrella 
term and not a personality trait. Emphatically: Not all 
Asians are the same.

In one fantastic exchange, Cathy asks her co-workers 

where she should rent a hotel for her parents. Danny 
(Chris King Wong, “Better Call Saul”) her underling 
analyst quips, “What kind of Asian are you?” noting 
that his parents always stay in his tiny apartment when 
they visit. On screen, Cathy shruggs and awkwardly 
explains that she lives with her boyfriend, a statement 
that makes Danny raise his eyebrows. 

In this exchange, “Bulge Bracket” ribs at a 

mythologized monolithic Asian American. Not all 
Asians are the same and there is no “correct” way of 
being Asian American. To quote a dear friend of mine, 
“For just as many Asian Americans that there are, there 
are just as many valid ways of being Asian American.” 

By virtue of having more than one Asian American 

character, Au is able weave in these illuminating 
scenarios without being heavy-handed. In that same 
fantastic exchange, Danny personally identified 
frugality and modesty as Asian traits, yet Cathy, also 
Asian American, does not identify with his definition.

“Bolo” (Feodor Chin, “Big Little Lies”) is another 

character Au uses to combat Asian American 
stereotypes. Cathy’s boss is loud, capricious and 
hyper-masculine. He plays golf with the other high-
level executives, having broken through the bamboo 
ceiling. But his success belies the things he sacrificed 
to become a top-level banker.

In the denouement, however, Bolo reveals a more 

serious side to his character. He discloses to Cathy 
that his name is actually John and that a racist 
coworker nicknamed him “Bolo” during his first year 
as an analyst grunt. Like Cathy, Bolo suffered racist 
microaggressions and weathered mercurial bosses. In 
the end, he tells Cathy that if she sticks with the firm, 
he will make sure she gets good, career-building cases. 

Finally! Someone on the show recognized the 

existence of racism and articulated it! For the entirety 
of the first season, the firm’s pervasive Culture of 
Silence stymied any genuine in-world discourse. Still, 
Bolo’s cathartic revelation leaves a bitter aftertaste. 
Only Bolo’s privilege as an executive-level banker 
allows him to put a word to the crime. His ability to 
articulate reality comes from a place of privilege. 

In the world of “Bulge Bracket,” without powerful 

industry connections, a single misstep can cause 
professional 
ruin. 
Having 
conversations 
about 

race and discrimination are unproductive for most 
employees; HR is unresponsive and bank superiors are 
unsympathetic. Corporate does not valorize honesty. 
The “Bulge Bracket” unequivocally demands personal 
sacrifice and conformity. 

At the end of the day, I hesitate to label the show’s 

corporate environment as hellish. The show is based 
off of Au’s wife Cindy’s own two-year stint in the 
bulge bracket. The world Au depicts is firmly rooted 
in an earthly reality. There’s a notable lack of elicit file 
cabinet rendezvous. Instead, the show depicts un-sexy 
sexual harassment and a young capable employee 
being ground into the dirt by stress. “Bulge Bracket” 
digs into corporate politics and presents the corporate 
workplace for what it is: absurd, montonimous and 
stressful. 

I was incredibly pleased by this unassuming show. I 

feasted well on “Bulge Bracket,” temporarily satiating 
my desire for good television and unmatched Asian 
American representation. 

***
For this food rec, I struggled to think of something 

mobile for stressed corporate clogs. My ultimate 
response is a Panera Bread poppy-seed bagel with plain 
cream cheese. 

However, in honor of my banker aunt, I am 

additionally recommending a side of lox and a generous 
sprinkle of capers. My addendums are a little more 
luxurious than a 100+ hour work week would permit 
but I am an advocate for treating oneself. 

Daily Arts Columnist Elizabeth Yoon can be reached 

at elizyoon@michigandaily.com.

LIZZIE YOON

Daily Arts Columnist

DESIGN BY TAYLOR SCHOTT

THE B-SIDE: CITIES
The endless TV shows about NYC

There is no shortage of television that 

takes place in New York City. I truly believe 
there should be an Emmy category titled 
“Outstanding Series Based in NYC.” It’s 
almost maddening when you think about it. 
Do the universes overlap? Has Jerry Seinfeld 
ordered coffee from Central Perk? Do Olivia 
Benson and Captain Holt occasionally pass 
by each other at NYPD events? Did Barney 
Stinson ever try something weird with 
Samantha Jones? The streets of the Big Apple 
are overrun with characters from iconic 
shows, so much so that the city itself has 
become one of television’s most prolific stars. 

It’s hard for me to not dedicate this 

piece to “The Nanny” or “Everybody Hates 
Chris” — the TV seeds of my childhood that 
turned into full-blown obsession — but as 
important to New York television culture 
as those series are, they’ll have to wait their 
turn. There are two shows whose existences 
define NYC television, driving tourists to 
West Village street corners and Morningside 
Heights diners. Yes, I’m talking about the 
two homogenous friend group-based sitcoms 
we love to hate or hate to love: “Friends” and 
“Seinfeld.” 

“Friends” and “Seinfeld” are the New 

York City sitcoms. I will actively ignore the 
existence of “How I Met Your Mother” for 
two main reasons: 1) Three out of the five 
main characters are Midwestern/Canadian 
transplants and 2) that damn finale. People 
may be angry that I’m putting “Friends” 
and “Seinfeld” in the same article, let alone 
sentence, but at the bare minimum, they are 
both about a friend group navigating life 
in the big city, and they were both actually 
filmed in California. With that being said, 
I do agree the two shows are incredibly 
different, primarily in the way New York City 
itself plays a role. 

I’ve said it before and I will say it again: 

“Friends” could’ve taken place in any city 
and still have been the same show. What was 
uniquely New York about it? The characters 
largely interacted with only each other, 
and ventured nowhere in the city beyond a 
nonexistent coffee shop and the occasional 
theater. Joey could have been a struggling 
actor in LA, Rachel could’ve worked at the 

Chicago Bloomingdales, Monica could be a 
chef in a Miami restaurant — the storylines 
would barely change. “Friends” couldn’t 
even bother to get NYC geography right. 
The characters often mention coming from 
or walking through Central Park, and in 

one episode Phoebe says her apartment is 
down the block from the park. Yet all of 
their apartments are in the West Village, 
specifically around Grove and Bedford, 
which is over 50 blocks from Central Park. 
And you rarely see them on a subway. It’s 
madness. 

The character potential of New York City 

is wasted in “Friends,” but “Seinfeld” has no 

such problem. From the Soup Nazi to George 
Steinbrenner, Mr. Pitt to David Puddy, 
“Seinfeld” utilizes the lawless good of the 
city that never sleeps. Even the main group 
itself is a personification of the city; chaotic 
adults who view life with a nonchalance and 
indifference that would be infuriating if it 
wasn’t so entertaining. Nearly every episode 
in this show-about-nothing provides a look 
into the zany tedium of city life. A bottle 
episode taking place in the waiting area of 
a Chinese restaurant. Fighting for chocolate 
babka in a crowded bakery. Failing to get 
sleep against the neon red glow of a chicken 
roaster sign across the street. These stories, 
and every odd character thrown into them, 
don’t try to stifle the absurdity of New York. 
They embrace it. 

It’s an easy choice to place a show in New 

York. The city makes for an easy and familiar 
backdrop, with enough murder to make for a 
good crime show and enough elites for a good 
schoolgirl drama. But any show not taking 
full advantage of the setting is wasting the 
city, tossing aside plotlines and characters 
that are essentially written for them on every 
subway ride and bodega run. Just leave it to 
the king of observations, Mr. Jerry Seinfeld, 
to explain it: “All people in New York are 
funny and get funnier as they get older, and 
everyone outside New York gets less funny.”

Daily Arts Writer Samantha Della Ferra can 

be reached at samfd@umich.edu.

SAM DELLA FERA

Daily Arts Writer

DESIGN BY TAYLOR SCHOTT

The streets of the Big 

Apple are overrun 

with characters from 

iconic shows, so 

much so that the city 
itself has become one 

of television’s most 

prolific stars

