ACROSS
1 Locale of TV’s
Krusty Krab
restaurant
7 “The Hitch-Hiker”
director Lupino
10 Meatless lasagna
ingredient,
perhaps
14 “I wanna go too!”
15 Presumed
threats to letter
carriers
17 “ ... according to
my abilities”
18 Half, statistically
19 Familiar material,
on the base?
21 __ loss
22 The Hammer of
baseball
26 Backbone of
capitalism, on the
base?
31 Natural mole fur
hue
33 Balm source
34 Hand analog
35 Fruity quaffs
36 “Actions speak
louder than
words,” e.g.
38 Short pooch, for
short
39 It’s hardly a
smash
40 Lowlands feature
41 __ metabolism
42 Disciplinary
action, on the
base?
46 Undemonstrative
sort
47 Med. recording
48 Important find, on
the base?
56 Cleaned, in a
way
59 Lethargy cause
60 One assessing
sentiment
61 Digital image
format
62 It keeps the team
together
63 Calculating
64 Studio equipment
DOWN
1 Companion to
Artemis
2 Simplicity
3 Related
4 2014 Best Rock
Album Grammy
winner
5 Spring (from)
6 Mean
7 Teen __
8 “And there you
have it!”
9 Old
10 Problem for a
conductor
wannabe
11 1930s-’40s
slugger
12 Limited
13 Mil. morale
booster
16 Oaf
20 Lacking color
23 Best for
consumption,
perhaps
24 Panasonic
headquarters
city
25 Staircase
support
26 Southwestern
community
27 No. twos
28 Perennial political
debate subject
29 Priest in 1
Samuel
30 N.T. book written
by Paul
31 Soothing
applications
32 Add to the family
36 “What a piece of
work is a __!”:
Hamlet
37 Legendary fighter
38 Broadway flier
40 Coins of old
Venice
41 Colorful tropical
perennial
43 Clearasil target
44 Guys
45 Mrs. Miller’s
partner in a 1971
Altman film
49 Scribbles
50 Hamilton’s
undoing
51 Modest sentence
52 November
honorees
53 Rylan of “Guiding
Light”
54 Currency of Iran
55 Doesn’t shut up
56 Le Carré figure
57 Ply with flowers
and chocolate
58 JFK was one
By Jeffrey Wechsler
©2015 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
10/23/15
10/23/15
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
RELEASE DATE– Friday, October 23, 2015
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
xwordeditor@aol.com
Classifieds
Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com
ARBOR PROPERTIES
Award‑Winning Rentals in Kerrytown,
Central Campus, Old West Side,
Burns Park. Now Renting for 2016.
734‑994‑3157. www.arborprops.com
FALL 2016 HOUSES
# Beds Location Rent
9 606 Catherine $5500
7 510 Catherine $4400
6 412 N. Thayer $4350
6 415 N. Thayer $4260
6 418 N. State $4350
6 511 Linden $4200
6 605 E. Hoover $4350
6 605 Catherine $4350
6 708 E. Kingsley $4500
6 716 E. Kingsley $4500
6 1207 Church $4650
5 515 S. Fourth $3500
5 910 Greenwood $4000
5 1019 Packard $4350
5 1024 Packard $3500
4 412 E. William $3020
4 507 Sauer Ct $2800
4 509 Sauer Ct $2800
4 809 Sybil $2800
4 812 E. Kingsley $3000
4 827 Brookwood $2800
4 927 S. Division $2800
4 1010 Cedar Bend $2400
4 1117 S. Forest $3000
3 932 Mary $2200
2 935 S. Division $2100
Tenants pay all utilities.
Leasing starts Nov. 10th
Reservations Accepted till 11/7.
CAPPO/DEINCO
734‑996‑1991
! NORTH CAMPUS 1‑2 Bdrm. !
! Riverfront/Heat/Water/Parking. !
! www.HRPAA.com !
“PRIME” PARKING FOR Sale
721 S. Forest “Forest Place”
Now‑April $100 per month
Now‑August $80 per month
Paid in full up front
734‑761‑8000 primesh.com
THESIS EDITING, LANGUAGE,
organization, format. All Disciplines.
734/996‑0566 or writeon@iserv.net
TEAM CLEANERS NEEDED
Ann Arbor‑Ypsilanti Area
PT Evenings, $9‑$11/hr based on exp
*Direct Hire*, immediate start, weekly pay
Call 248‑598‑5255 or apply at
www.saberstaffingservices.com
MAY 2016 HOUSES
# Beds Location Rent
8 720 Arbor $6400
6 417 N. Thayer $4260
5 1119 S. Forest $4200
4 505 Sauer $2440
Tenants pay all utilities.
Showings Scheduled M‑F 10‑3
24 hour noticed required
DEINCO PROPERTIES
734‑996‑1991
WWW.CARLSONPROPERTIES.‑
COM
734‑332‑6000
DEFENSE OF FACULTY
misconduct cases
Nachtlaw.com 734‑663‑7550
ROCKSTARS WANTED
Jimmy John’s Delivery drivers/bikers,
sandwich makers (PT) & Managers (FT)
All Ann Arbor locations.
Resumes to jfencyk@jimmyjohns.com
DEFENSE OF STUDENT
sexual misconduct cases
Nachtlaw.com 734‑663‑7550
FOR RENT
HELP WANTED
SERVICES
PARKING
6 — Friday, October 23, 2015
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
BOYFRIEND JEANS
ARE ONTOLOGICALLY
DESTRUCTIVE
By CATHERINE SULPIZIO
Senior Arts Editor
Consider the boyfriend jean
that has gained a new popular-
ity on campus, where hardly a
passing period can go by with-
out a stream of (female) stu-
dents crossing the Diag in the
loose, tattered jeans that sit
attractively low on the torso.
When we left for summer,
jeans were still sealed up and
adhered tightly to the leg. A few
months brings a new silhouette
and a new aesthetic. But is the
boyfriend jean new?
The boyfriend jean osten-
sibly belonged to a boyfriend,
stolen by the gamine who takes
off with his sweatshirt and base-
ball cap too. But this isn’t cross-
dressing so much as dress-up
that
brings
femininity
into
sharp relief (that angular hip,
the slip of tan thigh, etc.). The
boyfriend jean writes its story
on its leg: here is evidence of a
partner, a brash sartorial con-
fidence and a life ruggedly had,
evinced by the holes that limbs
poke out of. In short, the jean
signifies authenticity, a scyth-
ing through layers that mask the
body, an emergence of organic
flesh through all that fabric
and a refusal to care about all
this. If Adam and Eve clothed
themselves with his-and-her
fig leaves out of shame, boy-
friend jeans illustrate that now
what is his is also hers and can
be tossed aside without shame.
Boyfriend jeans show a com-
modity displaced from its ideal
market, used long after it cycles
out of fashion and until it can no
longer work. Boyfriend jeans are
anti-capitalist.
Of course, the boyfriend
jean rarely has that backstory:
Boyfriends, at least the boy-
friends of well dressed female
ilk, are about as likely to wear the
stonewashed, slightly frumpy fit
of dad jeans required for a good
“boyfriend” jean as a chain wal-
let or neon windbreaker. The
boyfriend wears jeans as tight as
yours (this is 2015 gender equal-
ity) and maybe has a waxed pair
too. We bought our pairs from
Urban Outfitters or Citizens of
Humanity. Therefore, this skin
is rendered inauthentic when
its emergence is prefigured by
a factory that carefully fixes
an identical set of holes onto
an identical set of jeans, sewn
for female bodies. In this way,
boyfriend jeans render the skin
that it reveals as artificial as the
nature of itself. Boyfriend jeans
are ontologically destructive.
Y
ou know the drill. Class just
ended, and conveniently,
Drake’s latest album is still
fresh on the charts. You’re alone.
You pop in your headphones, pre-
tending to
resonate with
the joyous
camaraderie
that comes
with having “a
really big team”
and you’re
troubled by the
obstacle that
is your dearth
of “really big
rings” — cru-
cial to cohesively accessorize the
aforementioned squad.
During
my
Drizzy-powered
strolls, I prefer to envision a
flustered
Drake
relentlessly
demanding rings at a Cartier or
Tiffany’s boutique each time I hear
“Big Rings” (music video ideas!)
rather than attempting to relate
his triumphant lyricism to my life.
Jokes aside, I cherish my solo walks
to class. It’s my amble of comfortable
solitude; a saunter to recharge,
re-center and, when time permits,
stop for the essential overdose of
caffeine that prompts my loquacity
in awkward discussion sections.
But, a successful stroll cannot
be endured without some sound
synching with my strides.
Oftentimes, I decidedly jam to my
perfectly curated playlist entitled
‘hype walk to class’ to ensure a
journey through the Diag that is of
the hype variety. But last week, I
forwent my methodical after-class
routine and opted for the musings
of the Man Repeller podcast “Oh
boy” per recommendation of my
Senior Arts Editor.
For those who don’t know (for
starters, help yourself and hop
off the laggard train, life awaits),
Leandra Medine is the founder
of/subversive queen behind the
gloriously
feminist,
intelligent,
quippy and style-centric entity that
is the Man Repeller website. She’s
the patron saint of the individual
and the steadfast champion of the
indescribable. She simply can’t be
defined; and though she can’t be
placed into a characteristic box,
she reminds you that you shouldn’t
even attempt to reduce her, yourself
or others to any rigid definition.
For nearly five years, Medine
has given her cult followers what
we don’t know we need when
we don’t know we need it. She
has revolutionized how we think
and talk about fashion with
her
stunning
irreverence
and
amendments to our collective
sartorial vernacular (remember
when we all abused the term “arm
party” in 2012? Yeah, she started
that). Her ingenious collection of
words and concepts can be found
within the site’s “Dick-shun-ary,”
likely to soon rival Oxford’s. Yet, the
MR universe isn’t all witty banter:
sometimes, she gets really deep
(see: Is Kim Kardashian the New
Jeff Koons?)
Her baby of a blog extends to
Twitter,
Instagram,
Facebook
and Tumblr presences, and since
its late-August debut, boasts a
podcast with over 50,000 iTunes
downloads. In the same vein of
Medine’s eclecticism, “Oh boy”s
impressive assortment of guests
and topics covered deems it a
space where anything goes and
everything’s understood.
Each hour-ish long episode is
a conversation between either
Medine, or the site’s resident
filmmaker
Jay
Buim,
and
a
relatively
well-known
woman
holding an enviable position in the
creative workforce. Of the nine
episodes currently available for
streaming, guests have ranged
from Amy O’Dell, online editor of
Cosmopolitian magazine, to Kiran
Gandhi, drummer for singer M.I.A.
who made headlines in early August
for running the London Marathon
sans tampon. Other guests include
immersion
journalist
Rebecca
Harrington, fashion virtuoso Stacy
London,
startup-veteran
Payal
Kadaka,
entrepreneur
Jordana
Kier, actress Whitney Cummings
and MR deputy editor, Amelia
Diamond. Essentially, it’s your ideal
phonebook of boss women whose
numbers you don’t have, a mere
download away.
Besides the obvious benefits
of devoting most of my time to
absorbing the insightful wisdom of
inspiring women, “Oh boy” revs me
up for class more than any Drake
song ever could; the ambition and
life/work passion imbued within
each chat is infectious. Though still
under the multi-faceted umbrella
of style, these portable life lessons
don’t merely focus on the latest
trends, they’re intimate one-on-
ones ranging from the creative
perils of self-doubt to the grit
behind the glossy-façade of success.
Each conversation delves into the
life’s work of wildly accomplished
women
and
fashion’s
greater
context — it’s a voice of reason and
realism through the comedic lens.
It’s brilliant.
Fashion, in short, is confusing
and complex. Yet, if you look at the
ever-expanding industry today,
it’s clear we’re moving past the
catty and sassy and into an era
of acceptance and accessibility.
Two weeks ago, supermodel Gigi
Hadid called out body-shaming
trolls on Instagram. Six years ago,
Olivier Rousteig took the reins of
prestigious French design house
Balmain, and made it viewable
and enticing to Millenials. For
the duration of her career from
co-founding TrendMicro to her
current stint at Instagram, fashion-
maven Eva Chen has consistently
reminded us that fashion can,
and needs to be, nice. Anomalous
leaders like Hadid, Rousteig, Chen
and Medine are redefining fashion’s
negative connotations of insularity
with an inviting openness and
refreshing realness.
Sure, certain spheres of luxury’s
inherent exclusivity will never
change (read: you’ll still probably
spend most of your life on the
waiting list for a Birkin). But fear
not, there’s a kind, new generation
committed to getting real.
For now, it’s still a time to be alive.
But even Drake agrees, Medine and
her podcast are onto something —
fashion’s inclusive era.
Filips is feenin’ for Leandra
Medine’s phone number. To sate her
with a random string of numbers,
e-mail carofil@umich.edu.
STYLE COLUMN
Oh boy, Man
Repeller tosses it
‘Jobs’ mythologizes
FILM REVIEW
By RACHEL KERR
Daily Arts Writer
I proudly admit that most of the
technology I own was made by
Apple. I can’t thank Steve Jobs and
Apple
enough
for them: they’re
elegant yet sim-
ple enough for
my technologi-
cally challenged
brain to compre-
hend. But these
words “elegant”
and “simple” do
not apply to Steve Jobs himself, or,
at least, that’s how we have come
to remember him in the four years
since his death. No doubt, Jobs
defined a generation of tech for
laymen and has proved a cultural
icon — but is he a complex, some-
times self-hating conundrum, too
intricate and secretive to decon-
struct? Screenwriter Aaron Sor-
kin (“The Social Network”) and
director Danny Boyle (“Trance”)
seem to think so, as they attempt to
separate the myth from the man in
“Steve Jobs.”
Admittedly, this is not your typ-
ical biopic, and Sorkin deserves
all of the credit in the world for
breaking with such a contrived
structure. Rather than simply
watching a retelling of his life, we
follow Jobs (Michael Fassbender,
“X-Men: Days of Future Past”)
and his coworkers and friends (or
are they enemies?) at three differ-
ent product launches in 1984, 1988
and 1998. Sorkin relies on dia-
logue and several flashbacks to fill
in the details we missed between
each showcase. This plays to his
strength, as he fills the scenes
with rich dialogue with a classic
Sorkinian bite.
But what we gain in distinctive
story structure, we lose in direct
narrative continuity. One can view
“Steve Jobs” almost as three sepa-
rate, 40-minute short films. We
don’t really need anything that
comes before or after each seg-
ment because they are completely
self-contained, and any otherwise
missing information is filled in
through a flashback. And before
each segment begins, we get a
montage of news stories that catch
us up on the inter-launch years and
set the stage for what’s to come.
Technically speaking, it all works,
but the separated segments keep
us at a distance. We cannot see
Jobs himself grow and his rela-
tionships evolve; instead, we are
forced to simply accept that some-
thing has changed, “Oh he’s nice to
his daughter now. That’s cool.”
This distance may be Sorkin and
Boyle’s attempt to reflect Jobs’s
mind within the narrative struc-
ture itself. The story makes very
clear that Jobs is locked into each
event, his mind zoned in on one
objective: success. And anything
that hampers that success must be
expunged. Boyle and Sorkin pro-
vide us with glimpses into his mind
— images and videos often appear
on walls, and brief cuts back to
previous segments are roughly
inserted to reflect his emotional
conflict — as further endorsement
of this idea. But, then again, Sor-
kin’s ego may have just kicked in
and he decided to be different for
the sake of difference (you know,
because he’s Aaron Sorkin).
(As the camera follows Jobs
around the various theaters,
I couldn’t help but recall the
long tracking shots of “Bird-
man;” both films share a theme
of closed, contained spaces as
reflections of the psyche.)
But the Sorkin-Boyle dynamic
ultimately proves somewhat dis-
appointing — they’re just too
mismatched. “The Social Net-
work” works so well because
Sorkin’s cold, disconnected char-
acter could be reflected in David
Fincher’s cold, calculated direc-
tion. Boyle, by contrast, uses the
camera in a more embracive fash-
ion, and he is always sympathetic
to his characters, even when his
characters are complete scum (see
“Trainspotting”).
Boyle is forced to look at Jobs
in two lights: one as the misan-
thropic boss and one as the father
and friend learning to be a decent
human being. And the contrast
between the two from a filmmak-
ing standpoint is quite stark.
Let me explain. There’s a
scene early on where Jobs con-
fronts Andy Hertzfeld (Michael
Stuhlberg, “Pawn Sacrifice”), an
original Macintosh developer,
in front of several other Apple
employees for failing to properly
set up the demo computer. The
camera circles around the two
characters, and we see the fear
on the other employees’ faces and
sense the dread instilled by Jobs.
We understand that this environ-
ment is, quite simply, toxic all the
way around. The film shines in
moments like these. But in scenes
where Joanna Hoffman (Kate
Winslet, “Insurgent”), another
member of the original Macin-
tosh team, tries to lecture Jobs
about being a more sympathetic
individual, the camera does a
standard close-up shot counter-
shot; it’s just not nearly as much
fun nor as telling and impactful
as the scene could be.
But where the structure fails,
the performances elevate. Fass-
bender will undoubtedly receive
an Oscar nomination for his work
here. He immerses himself in
the character and balances the
forcefulness of the character with
subtlety, but no less drive, in his
quieter, more earnest scenes. And
Jeff Daniels (HBO’s “The News-
room”) as former Apple CEO John
Sculley demonstrates incredible
charisma, representing a formi-
dable opponent to Fassbender.
The climactic, tense confrontation
between the two after Jobs’ dis-
missal from Apple proves electri-
fying, the film’s finest moment.
Seth Rogen (“The Interview”)
as Steve Wozniak displays con-
siderable range and heart. We get
the sense that the Jobs-Wozniak
relationship seems the most at risk
to Jobs’s toxicity. It’s clear the two
have some kind of respect for each
other, or maybe an almost frater-
nal obligation to each other, and
at times they seem to truly care.
But the two are so diametrically
opposed in their desires — Jobs
demands control over Wozniak
and his ingenuity, where Wozniak
yearns for some kind of recognition
for his success and role in trans-
forming computing, if not from
the public then at least from Jobs
— that their dynamic will eventu-
ally crumble beneath them. It’s a
deeply interesting relationship, one
that deserves a bit more exploration
than the film devotes to it.
So is “Steve Jobs” a success? Yes
and no. The film is rooted in dia-
logue rather than images, so those
who prefer to see rather than hear
will be disappointed. However, the
dialogue is, on the whole, absorb-
ing and thoroughly entertaining.
And the film is worth seeing for
Fassbender alone. But in attempt-
ing to deconstruct the myth that
is “Steve Jobs,” the filmmakers
almost mythologize him further.
Not until the very, very end does
Jobs become something beyond a
narcissistic, sardonic tyrant. His
many verbal assaults are so effec-
tive, so biting and, for better or
worse, so funny that we sometimes
lose the perspective that Jobs is for
the most part not a good person.
That Jobs died four years ago only
further muddies this portrayal, as
we can look on him more fondly
now that he’s gone.
When dealing with biopics,
even ones as different as this, one
must always separate reality from
the art: “Steve Jobs” is not a true
reflection of Steve Jobs, but a study
of the myth of Steve Jobs. It’s an
important distinction to remem-
ber as you watch the film. “Steve
Jobs” isn’t a biography, but it ven-
tures into deeper waters than any
standard biopic could. “Think dif-
ferent” was Apple’s slogan back in
1997, and, at the very least, “Steve
Jobs” does.
CAROLINE
FILIPS
B
Steve Jobs
Universal
Pictures
Rave & Quality 16