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