STAYING IN
ANN ARBOR THIS
SUMMER?
APPLY TO WORK FOR
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
BUSINESS TEAM!
DESIGNERS! LAYOUT!
CONTACT
JOBS.TMD@GMAIL.COM
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED!
ADVERTISING! RANDOS!
Classifieds
Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com
ACROSS
1 Past due
5 Place for a safe
9 Connery and
McCartney
13 “Don’t rub __”
14 Geometry
calculations
16 Cool one’s heels
17 *Performer’s exit
direction
19 Award for “Game
of Thrones”
20 Dangerous
Amazon fish
21 “Scotch” sealers
23 See 47-Down
24 *Immediately
27 Handed out cards
29 Oakland
Coliseum player
30 *High stadium tier
34 Start of a
choosing rhyme
35 Step on it,
quaintly
36 Form 1099 ID
37 President pro __
40 Stretchy
bandage brand
41 Damage
43 *Sports bet
based on total
points scored
46 Vote out of office
49 Totally thrill
50 *Like most TV
dramas
52 Speaks, biblically
55 Texas shrine
56 Almond or cashew
58 Luke Skywalker,
for one
60 In advance, and
where you might
find both parts of
the answers to
starred clues
62 “Absolutely!”
63 Schussing spot
64 Novelist Ferber
65 Starts to blossom
66 Watches
67 Paper quantity
DOWN
1 Speak like
Sylvester
2 Storage space
accessed via the
ceiling
3 Pageant
accessory
4 “Prepare to duel!”
5 “Sour to the
People” extreme
candy brand
6 “Carmen”
highlight
7 A joker might pull
yours
8 Christine of “The
Blacklist”
9 Honey
10 “My parents are
gonna kill me!”
11 Glass edge
12 Mess of a room
15 Drummer Ringo
18 Joins
22 Free TV spot
24 Fraud watchdog
org.
25 Stolen jewelry
seller
26 Onion ring
maker
28 Jay with jokes
30 “Yup”
31 Steinway, for one
32 Convinced
33 “Hooked on
Classics” co.
38 Crossword
solver’s smudges
39 Change
genetically
42 Small falcons
44 Really relax, with
“out”
45 Reply to bad
alternatives
47 With 23-Across,
priced separately,
on menus
48 Crypts, e.g.
51 December
songs
53 Swap
54 Reddish-orange
dye
56 “Don’t think so”
57 Red-coated
cheese
58 Fast punch
59 Australian bird
61 Nemesis
By Roger and Kathy Wienberg
©2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
03/14/17
03/14/17
ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:
RELEASE DATE– Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle
Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis
xwordeditor@aol.com
1 BEDROOM APTS Near N. Campus
Fall 2017‑18 ‑ $900/m + $25/m Utilities
Each unit has one parking space.
909 & 915 Wall St.
Deinco Properties 734‑996‑1991
4 BEDROOM HOUSE May 2017
New Kitchen & Study
Wood Floors Throughout
Washer/Dryer, Parking
$2800 + Utilities
1010 Cedar Bend Dr.
734‑996‑1991
BROADVIEW
APARTMENTS
‑
Spa‑
cious
&
peaceful
North
Campus
living!!
1
&
2
bedroom
apartments
with
pricing
that
starts at $1110 per installment!! FREE
parking,
FREE
laundry,
and
FREE
shuttle
service! Call today for specials!
CMB MANAGEMENT ‑ With 17 pre‑
mier
locations
treating
every
resident
like
family since 1992.
Apartments as low as
$1050 per rental installment. Call today
for
specials
and
to
schedule
a
tour
of
your
new home! 734‑741‑9300
EFF, 1 & 2 Bdrm Apts Fall 2017‑18
Many locations near campus
Rents from $850 (eff) ‑ $1415 (2 bdrm)
Most include Heat and Water
www.cappomanagement.com
734‑996‑1991
935 S. DIVISION
2 Bedroom + Study Fall 2017
Max Occupancy is 4
2 Parking Spaces Washer/Dryer
$2190 + Utilities
Cappo Mgmt 734‑996‑1991
ARBOR PROPERTIES
Award‑Winning Rentals in Kerrytown,
Central Campus, Old West Side,
Burns Park. Now Renting for 2017.
734‑649‑8637. www.arborprops.com
AVAILABLE MAY 2017, Studio near
CCRB. AVAILABLE SEPT. 2017, 2
Bedroom near South U. 734‑996‑2836
FALL 2017‑18 Apts @ 1015 Packard
3 Bedroom ‑ $1380 ‑ basement
1 parking space avail for $50/m per unit
Deinco 734‑996‑1991
LARGE 3 BDRM. at 119 E Liberty.
Washer and dryer, central air. Heart of
Ann
Arbor, 7 min. walk to UM and close
to Main St. Sept. 9/1/17‑8/24/18. $2700.
Please call 734 769 8555
GEDDES HILL ‑ HUGE contemporary
apartments
with
unforgettable
amenities!
Peaceful location adjacent to the Arbore‑
tum
with
pricing
starting
at
$1800.
Call
to‑
day for current specials! 734‑741‑9300
712 W. HURON ‑ PURRRFECT, pet‑
friendly
location
with
great
pricing!
Rents
starting at $1375! Call today for specials
& secure your new home! 734‑741‑9300
TWO BDRM APT. 325 E Liberty in‑
cluding
attic
room
with
sky
light
room
and
window AC for three people. Apt above
Persian House 5 min. walk to UM. Free
heat, shared internet. $2650 per month.
734 769 8555 or 734 662 0805
STUDENTS: COME JOIN a 75‑
minute focus group discussion about The
Michigan Daily and receive $40 cash. We
currently need more students to round our
our representation in these March groups.
Please contact Lisa Carn at 734‑647‑
6582 if you are interested in participation.
FOR RENT
HELP WANTED
6 — Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Casey Affleck won an Oscar,
so as per usual when a rich guy
in Hollywood with serious
sexual allegations against him
wins something, everyone is
revisiting the “can you separate
the art from the artist” debate.
Even weeks later, my Facebook
and Twitter feeds are full of
people giving their own takes
on whether this separation
is
possible,
necessary
and
appropriate.
This debate is not new, and
even though it has been around
for centuries, it feels fresh, as
the current design of American
society
makes
it
almost
impossible not to be constant
consumers of media, or avoid the
social implications of everything
we do.
Do I believe that I can like
a movie without liking the
heinous
things its director
has done? Yes. I can adore
the
opening
sequence
of
“Manhattan”
while
still
despising Woody Allen (though
admittedly those emotions may
be heightened for me by virtue of
being a native New Yorker who
really doesn’t like seeing him
around town). But this debate
isn’t as simple as it is made out
to be; it holds more questions
than just whether it’s possible to
draw a line between artist and
artwork.
The fundamental question
at the root of this debate
is whether we as a society
believe that a person who has
committed a crime — assuming
for simplicity’s sake that the
crime isn’t something banal
like jaywalking — should be
allowed to participate in the
production of art. Opinions on
this often depend on the crime
itself, the perpetrator, the kind
of art they want to produce, their
current status of incarceration
or
punishment
and
their
attitude (i.e., level of remorse).
The
follow-up
question
is
whether they should be allowed
to reap the benefits of others
consuming their art, and the
third is whether the rest of us
should want to consume it at all.
But the reality of this debate in
current contexts, and the reason
I’m sure no one is confused as to
why I’m writing about it within
the framework of a Gender
and Media column, is because
nowadays when people talk
about separating the art from
the artist, they are almost always
talking about sexual misconduct
— because it is only within the
realm of sexual misconduct that
we have a supposed gray area the
size of an ocean. No other kind of
behavior or crime elicits such a
passionate rush by the masses to
this gray area where people sit
and argue whether something
does or does not count as assault,
whether someone is or is not a
rapist, whether she was or was
not “asking for it” by her dress,
her behavior, her intoxication,
her agreement to work on that
film or with this director. When
it comes to allegations of sexual
harassment or assault — against
Casey
Affleck,
Bill
Cosby,
Woody Allen, Roman Polanski,
Nate Parker, the list goes on
and on — everyone seems to
jump to defend their art while
simultaneously diminishing the
severity of or questioning the
validity of the accusations.
I’m not just talking about
Casey Affleck, or the women
who have come out with their
stories about his behavior. I’m
talking
about
the
rampant
harassment and assault that
women in this particular male-
dominated, art-based industry
still face. I’m talking about the
patriarchal power structures
so
deeply
entrenched
they
leave women who do make it
in the door — actors, writers,
assistants, directors and those
who do the invisible, non-
artistic work — vulnerable not
only to these kinds of things but
also to a boys club that protects
their own. The rate of fake
accusations of rape and abuse is
incredibly low, but our society
views those as more dangerous
to our precious art world than
the literal safety and well-being
of the women involved.
Another aspect missing from
current discussions about this
debate is that there’s an obvious
reflection of people’s ingrained
attitudes towards women in the
art that they make. People write
what they know. Woody Allen
knows how to be an old guy
going after women half his age,
so that’s what he writes. That’s
why so many of his movies are
so damn predictable: Beautiful
young ingenue blinks at a
cynical, grizzled man twice her
age, who suddenly realizes that
he can embrace life again. Many
people believe the allegations
of rape against Nate Parker to
be true — and if they are, is it
really a surprise that a man who
has committed sexual assault
directs a film in which the rape
of women is used solely as a plot
device to further the arcs of the
heroic men? Is it really a surprise
that a male-dominated industry
produces films in which women
are still often written as two-
dimensional archetypes — and
when they aren’t, the writers
are asked why they write such
“strong female characters?” Is
it really a surprise that the film
industry is one of the biggest
contributors to rape culture,
when so many movies sexualize
the lack of consent?
The most visceral example
I can think of that shows how
ingrained
attitudes
towards
women is manifested in the
production of art is the rape
scene in Bertolucci’s film “Last
Tango in Paris,” in which
Marlon Brando plays a character
who rapes Maria Schneider,
using a stick of butter for
lubrication. In the past year, it
has come out that this scene
wasn’t filmed with Schneider’s
full consent; she was only
informed of how they planned to
film the scene once she arrived
on set, and didn’t consent to
the butter, but felt at the time
she couldn’t say anything, as
she was young and new and
Brando and Bertolucci were
stars. Bertolucci, in a revolting
display
of
dehumanization,
didn’t deny this; he defended his
decision by saying he, “... wanted
her reaction as a girl, not as an
actress. I wanted her to react
humiliated.” Instead of trusting
that she was a capable actor
and treating her like a fellow
professional, he targeted the
pain he thought she would feel
as a woman, for whom the fear of
gendered violence is a constant
reality. His lack of respect for
women was directly translated
into the production of his art.
Last year, Lady Gaga brought
survivors
of
sexual
assault
onstage as she sang a song about
survival, and they received a
standing ovation and several
hugs from the celebrities in the
audience. But that’s not nearly
enough. I’m still waiting for
someone to get up on the that
stage and hold everyone in
the audience accountable for
their normalization of sexual
harassment in the industry, that
is both bolstered and reflected
in the kinds of subtle misogyny
still present in the films that they
make. We shouldn’t be angry
about Casey Affleck winning
an Oscar; that’s just the natural
culmination of the atmosphere
in which women are often still
expected to put up or shut up.
It’s not that Affleck’s artistic
performance itself is tarnished
by his behavior; it’s that people
shouldn’t want to work with
him in the first place, or support
someone who acts that way.
Fully separating the art from
the artist is a seductive position;
it allows us to be voracious
consumers
of
art
that
is
inhibited only by our own tastes
— and for the vast majority of
us, our strained wallets — so we
fool ourselves into thinking it’s
really that simple. If you believe
that art, from conception to
production to consumption, is
inherently political, as I and
most of the people I know
do, then it isn’t that simple. It
can’t be. This argument isn’t
about whether the morality of
the artist affects the intrinsic
quality of the art; what people
are really asking is if we should
let our perception of the artist
inform or affect our perception
of the art. If you want to pretend
it’s possible to separate the art
from the artist, despite the fact
that you literally can’t, as the
art is a reflection of the artist’s
experiences, as has been proven
time and again, fine. But don’t
pretend you can separate either
the art or the artist from the
inherently patriarchal power
structures in which they are
both already ingrained.
Silence can be deafening in
more ways than one. The silence
that so often meets these women
when they take the brave step
of bringing the behavior of
these men to light is repulsive.
And Brie Larson’s silence — her
refusal to clap for Affleck on
national TV — was brave, but
it was drowned out. I’m still
waiting for us to get to a place
where Casey Affleck would
have been left standing up there,
holding the weight of that trophy
in his sweaty hands, looking out
over a sea of stony faces, with a
deafening silence ringing in his
ears.
Separating art from
the artist: Take 200
GENDER AND MEDIA COLUMN
Diving into the pernicious world of film production, why
nothing has changed and what we can do to change it
SOPHIA
KAUFMAN
Circa Waves, who hurt you?
Breaking from previous sound, Circa surprises and broods
Circa Waves’ debut album
Young Chasers exists in the
heat of the summer: smooth
transitions from one laidback
song to the next putting the
listener in the mindset of sun-
soaked afternoons, cotton clouds
chasing down the endlessly blue
line of the horizon. Repetitious
but
comforting,
the
album’s
greatest strength lies in its
genuine simplicity.
By
contrast,
Circa
Waves’
newest
release,
Different
Creatures,
exists
in
harsh
shadows.
Backed
by
aggressive
harmonies
and
armed
with
pointed
vocals,
Different
Creatures
seems
to be a complete
rebranding
of
Circa
Waves,
trading in mellow
for
forceful.
Even
the
two
albums’
cover
art are markedly
dissimilar; Young
Chasers’
coats
fantastical
imagery with hazy colors, while
the harsh reds and blacks seen
in Different Creatures brings to
mind Pink Floyd’s The Wall.
The album sets its tone right
from the opening song, “Wake
Up.” Rapid-fire electric guitar
chords build with intensity then
immediately
dissolve
to
the
lyrics “So, coming, tryna break
my fall / leaving, spitting sticks
and stones.” “Wake Up” is jarring
and
initiates
a
bleakness
that
is
reflected
throughout the rest
of the album.
Through
lead
singer
Kieran
Shudall’s hopeless
vocals
and
melodies
wound
tight
with
tension, songs “Goodbye” and
“A Night On The Broken Tiles”
are grating. And while the more
placid components of songs —
“Fire That Burns,” “Different
Creatures”
and
“Out On My Own”
— help to create
brief
moments
of
respite
from
surrounding high-
energy tracks, they
do nothing to shape
the album overall.
Different
Creatures is dense
with
similar-
sounding songs, tightly packed
with no real sense of purpose. It’s
easy to get lost in the constant
antagonism.
Circa
Waves
created
an
album wrapped in cynicism; the
grim lyrics and downhearted
perspective of nearly every song
construct
impermeable
layers
of negativity. It’s startling, the
pronounced dreariness of this
album, and a bit forced.
With
Different
Creatures,
there appears to be
a conscious push to
be more impacting.
Young Chasers was
decently successful
but unoriginal. Its
songs are pleasant
and
innocuous
but
hardly
novel
enough to make waves. Through
their newest release, Circa Waves
seems to strive to prove that it
can break through the generic
indie-rock label and compose
something influential. However,
in this drive to make a name for
themselves, Circa Waves lost the
authenticity that Young Chasers,
in all its uninspired, conventional
glory, reverberated with.
The
songs
in
Different
Creatures
are
brooding
and
gritty but unapproachable. The
emotions it struggles to portray
appear distant and difficult to
connect with. The drive behind
the bleak vocals and the pointed
tempos is one that is empty of any
actual emotion. In pushing for
notability, Circa Waves conceived
an album that is explosive but
empty — a hollowed out shell that
has only decorative value.
SHIMA SADAGHIYANI
Daily Arts Writer
Different
Creatures
Circa Waves
Virgin EMI
Virgin EMI Records
Circa Waves released their new album this past Friday
ALBUM REVIEW
It’s easy to
get lost in
the constant
antagonism