January is the month for
fixing things. For some, it’s a
body fix — gym memberships
are purchased, alarm clocks
are set, extra champagne from
New Year’s
Eve is tossed
out. Others
set
career-
oriented
goals
—
following
up with job
recruiters,
making
an
effort
to
stay on top
of projects,
finally
asking
for
that
promotion (or at least getting
your internship housing paid
for over the summer).
But there are other areas of
our lives needing to be “fixed”
that go unnoticed each year,
because they don’t call for extra
obligations. We’re conditioned
to think that “New Year, New
Me” means adding more to our
plate — whether that be more
veggies, morning spin sessions,
a night class called “How to
Be Successful Post-Graduation
101” — but sometimes it calls
for
the
opposite:
letting
ourselves breathe. This year,
my New Year’s resolution isn’t
to be more organized, more
productive, or more focused
on school, running, or even my
post-graduation plans.
Instead, I’m resolving to
relax. It’s easier said than done.
I bet this sounds familiar:
finals week, a tiny table at
Espresso Royale, laptop opened
to a blank document, books
piled high on a stool. I’d been
staring at the computer screen
for about 30 minutes, but my
mind wasn’t on the paper I had
to write; it was on the to-do
list scrolling in the back of
my head: finish essays, write
cover letters, make flashcards,
submit applications! There was
so much to do that the bulk of it
paralyzed me. I lashed out at my
boyfriend when he stopped by
to visit, saying he was wasting
my time. Couldn’t he see that I
didn’t have 20 minutes to talk?
Turns out, I did have time.
And so does everyone else,
no matter how busy they are
(i.e. even those who have
infinite to-do lists). Because
as much as I think I’m being
“productive” and “bettering”
myself by taking on a Herculean
workload, if all I’m left with
is a blank document and an
irritated boyfriend, I’ve really
accomplished nothing.
So what should I be doing
instead
of
unproductively
stressing? Coloring. No, really.
If you haven’t heard of adult
coloring books yet, you will
soon. Filled with pages of
beautifully intricate patterns,
books like “Secret Garden”
and “Enchanted Forest” by
Johanna
Basford
or
Emma
Farrarons’ “The Mindfulness
Coloring Book: Anti-Stress Art
Therapy for Busy People” have
topped bestseller lists in the
United States. Sales especially
skyrocketed over the holidays:
Amazon reported to Fortune
magazine that out of their top 10
bestselling books in December,
five were adult coloring books.
This
DIY-art-therapy
phenomenon
has
lead
prestigious media outlets from
the Atlantic and the New York
Times, to NPR and CNN Health,
to ask a key question: does
it work? Can coloring really
relieve stress for adults, or are
they just a distraction from
our problems? And my own
question: is filling in a coloring
book really a productive use of
college students’ time?
To answer these questions,
I sought out Psychology Prof.
Nansook Park, director of the
Michigan Positive Psychology
Center on campus. Most of Park’s
work focuses on mindfulness
(the act of living in the moment
and being open to experience)
and its positive impact on
individual health, particularly
in
regards
to
decreasing
symptoms
of
anxiety
and
depression. At the University,
Park regularly teaches a class
called
“Savoring,”
which
instructs students to be wholly
present in their everyday lives
— for example, to truly savor
a piece of chocolate, a walk in
the Arb or a conversation with
roommates.
I asked for Park’s opinion on
whether adult coloring books
were just a fad or a legitimate
mechanism to cope with stress
and anxiety. Also, I asked
whether or not she saw the
coloring trend as a regression
to childhood — a potentially
serious issue, as students are
at a critical stage of becoming
independent and learning to
face their problems.
“It’s not fair to dismiss
coloring as regressing,” Park
said, who had observed two
University
faculty
members
coloring recently on their staff
break. “There are too many
studies that support the health
benefits of simple tasks like
coloring. Finishing a picture
gives our brains the chance to
zone out, similar to meditation,
but it also gives us a sense of
accomplishment — there’s color
on the page where there wasn’t
before.”
This sense of accomplishment
— having a picture to show for
our task — makes coloring a
positive experience, which is
why it not only gives people a
momentary release from stress,
but
actually
improves
our
moods.
“People
are
happier
when
they
have
positive
experiences, like when they’re
creating something or going
somewhere,” Park said. “We
zone out when we watch TV, but
we aren’t necessarily happier
when we come back to reality,
because we haven’t been active
participants in the task.”
Coloring differs importantly
from other forms of creative
expression,
like
writing
or
doodling, because it has a set
structure. As the Atlantic put
it, “Coloring offers that relief
and mindfulness without the
paralysis that a blank page can
cause.” In a coloring book, the
important decisions of form and
layout have already been made
for us — our only job is to pick
a crayon.
“When
we
write,
we’re
forced to go into our heads
and potentially face difficult
issues,”
Park
explained.
“Coloring is mindless. We aren’t
solving our problems, which is
why coloring books cannot be
used to solve long-term issues
such as anxiety or depression.”
“However,” Park continued,
“Coloring books are a great
tool for short-term stress relief.
When you’re overwhelmed by
stress to the point of paralysis,
taking 20 minutes to color
a picture gives your brain a
necessary break. Afterwards,
you’ll be able to face your
problems with fresh eyes.”
Make a resolution to relax,
then be more productive as a
result. Sounds like a fresh start
to me.
Middlebrook is coloring
the day away. To ask what
her favorite color is, email
hailharp@umich.edu.
HEALTH COLUMN
Finding mindfulness
in coloring books
Coloring differs
because it has a
set structure.
HAILEY
MIDDLEBROOK
Phony, gilded Globes
By VANESSA WONG
Daily Arts Writer
Being
an
Asian
American
woman, movies with accurate rep-
resentations of my life experiences
are extremely rare, if not nonex-
istent. Yet here I am, doing the
opposite of boycotting white, male-
centric movies and – dare I say it?
– enjoying them. What gives?
It’s a simple explanation: unless
I want to sit in an empty space
completely devoid of all media
entertainment, I have to make
compromises. I have to reclaim and
rehabilitate the white male gaze to
tease out elements with which I can
identify.
Because even with all the prob-
lems inherent in inserting myself
so fully into these characters, it also
lets me reclaim positive elements.
Take Catwoman’s character in
“Batman.” Though she’s the villain
and we shouldn’t like her, my mind
searches for traits that encourage,
even empower me. She’s fierce — a
female role model who isn’t pas-
sive! Great! Never mind that she
will never get to be the real hero
and save the day. She’s hyper-sex-
ualized just to add eye candy for
male viewers? Well, I embrace sex-
positivity, so I interpret her slink-
ing around in skintight suits with
that lens instead.
Another example: “Boyhood’s”
very white, middle class, American
depiction of childhood. I left the
theater with the goofiest grin on
my face, nostalgic for the childhood
experiences I never had. But I take
the experiences of other people
around me and use that to reconcile
the gap between my life and what’s
on the screen.
I’ve compromised. I enjoy this. I
feel comforted, satisfied.
But should I be?
Regardless of how much I can
find interesting and compelling
characters to identify with in films,
it’s still perpetrating the idea of
what is normal and what is not.
Though I smiled knowingly when it
happened in “Boyhood,” I’ve never
watched “Rugrats” or been to a
baseball game. My family doesn’t
have heartwarming Thanksgiv-
ing traditions. People are always
shocked: “You never did that? Did
you even have a childhood?” I did,
but because white culture is the
predominantly represented one,
it doesn’t feel like I had the right
childhood.
As a viewer, I can make things
that are not relatable relatable to
me. That is the joy and beauty of
storytelling. You can take on the
experiences of a secret agent solv-
ing a mystery, or a child dealing
with a hard time, or a washed-up
journalist grappling with identity,
and it helps you connect your own
experiences to someone else’s.
So when the industry doesn’t
want to produce films with diverse
backgrounds because audiences
(hint, white males) cannot relate to
them, that’s bullshit. If the majority
of my movie-watching life involves
learning to understand and empa-
thize with the stories of other gen-
ders, nationalities, races and even
species, I think white males can
learn to do it once in a while too.
NBC
I spy with my little eye, someone’s toupee.
IFC PRODUCTIONS
Ah yes, I love the grass.
Looking for my own
childhood in media
FILM NOTEBOOK
By SHIR AVINADAV
Daily Arts Writer
Every year, the star-studded red
carpet, weeks of speculation and
buzz surrounding nominations
and a hilarious, high-profile host
(or hosts) comprise the indulgence
and shameless ploy for media
attention that is the Golden Globe
Awards.
This year, both expected and
unexpected titles and perform-
ers received awards. Among this
year’s winners, there were many
first timers, such as Lady Gaga
(Best Actress in a Mini-Series,
“American Horror Story: Hotel”)
and Rachel Bloom (Best Actress
in a Comedy Series, “Crazy Ex-
Girlfriend”). There were also
veterans like Kate Winslett (Best
Supporting Actress in a Drama,
“Steve Jobs”), Aaron Sorkin
(Best Screenplay, “Steve Jobs”)
and Sylvester Stallone (Best Sup-
porting Actor, “Creed”) grace-
fully accepting their awards.
The prestigious Cecil B. DeMille
award was granted to the legend-
ary Denzel Washington (“The
Equalizer”), making him only
the third Black actor to receive
the honor.
Some nominations and wins,
however, were just baffling. The
entire Motion Picture, Musical or
Comedy category was a mixed bag
of films dubiously touted as come-
dies (or musicals). Films like “Joy”
and “The Martian” were nomi-
nated alongside “Trainwreck” and
“Spy,” with “The Martian” taking
home the Golden Globe. The only
thing funny about “The Martian”
was that it was placed in this cat-
egory at all.
What wasn’t funny at this year’s
ceremony was Ricky Gervais’ per-
formance as host. Not only was
his monologue a hollow critique
of Hollywood’s shining stars, but
it also slammed those responsible
for putting him on the Globes stage
for the fourth time. His incredulity
at being asked back to host, given
the backlash he receives each
time, matched that of his audience.
However, the almost certainty of
criticism didn’t deter him from
making his usual acerbic remarks.
Every time the camera cut to
another mildly amused or insult-
ed guest, Gervais’ poor taste
became more painfully obvious.
His affronts ranged from crass
remarks about Jeffrey Tambor’s
role as a transgender woman
on the Emmy-winning Amazon
original series “Transparent,” to
unrestrained innuendos about
Bill Cosby’s sexual misconduct.
His monologue and subsequent
jokes seemed to have been given
as little thought as the decision
to bring him back as host. His
usual antics were at best half-
hearted and at worst offensive.
Among the other presenters
there weren’t many redeem-
ing
moments
of
entertain-
ment. Jonah Hill (“Wolf of Wall
Street”) showed up as the bear
from “The Revenant” alongside
Channing Tatum (“The Hateful
Eight”), while America Ferrera
(“Superstore”) and Eva Longoria
(“Telenovela”) joked about get-
ting confused for other Latina
actresses, eliciting laughs. Jamie
Foxx (“Django Unchained”) did
his best Steve Harvey impres-
sion, announcing “Straight Outta
Compton,” which hadn’t been
nominated, as the winner of best
original score and drawing atten-
tion to the film’s snub. Otherwise,
there was little else to distract
from Gervais’ cringe-worthy com-
ments and the poorly produced
awards ceremony.
This year’s Globes pitted two
notable Amazon original series
against one another. Roman Cop-
pola and Jason Schwartzman’s
“Mozart in the Jungle” beat out Jill
Soloway’s “Transparent” for Best
Comedy Series, and Gael Garcia
Bernal (“Y Tu Mamá También”)
took home the title of Best Actor in
a Comedy Series.
It was a big night for “The Rev-
enant” as well — which received
the award for Best Motion Picture
Drama and earned its director,
Alejandro González Inarritú the
title of Best Director of a Motion
Picture and Leonardo DiCaprio
the title of Best Actor in a Motion
Picture Drama.
Brie Larson received her first
Golden Globe Award for her per-
formance in the drama “Room,”
the touching story of a woman and
her five-year-old son freed from
captivity and finally experiencing
the world outside. And Jon Hamm
won his second award this year for
his role as Don Draper, the stone-
faced advertising executive on
“Mad Men.”
Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy”) beat
out the other talented perform-
ers recognized in her category
(though it is questionable whether
Lawrence belonged in the comedy
category at all). And it goes with-
out saying that Taraji P. Henson’s
win, placing her among the slowly
increasing ranks of women of color
who have received awards for their
roles on television, was both well-
deserved and entertaining. Her
response to being told to wrap-up
her acceptance speech was per-
fect: “Wait a minute. I waited 20
years for this. You’re going to wait.
Yeah, you’re going to give me a lit-
tle more time.”
It’s always inspiring to see tal-
ented artists get recognition for
their hard work, but when award
ceremonies designed to acknowl-
edge talent and hard work are
driven by publicity and industry
politics, the show becomes less
appealing. Each year Hollywood
lets the masses into its glamor-
ous world for a few hours, draw-
ing in audiences with this short
window of opportunity to indulge
in its façade of prestige. Yet, I will
doubtlessly continue to watch,
even though I know my joy for see-
ing artists I respect and admire
getting acknowledgement is just
an illusion.
TV REVIEW
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Wednesday, January 20, 2016 — 5A