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