Classifieds

Call: #734-418-4115
Email: dailydisplay@gmail.com

ACROSS
1 Franklin’s faith
6 Civil rights org.
11 Nursery offering
14 More than just
saber-rattling
15 Not as well
16 Numero __
17 1980 Clint
Eastwood film
about a Wild
West show
19 Elton’s title
20 Forward
21 “Isn’t that
something”
22 “Hold it right
there!”
23 1965 Jerry
Lewis/Tony
Curtis farce
involving flight
attendants
26 Prey for cheetahs
29 Little League
airer
30 Fishing spot
31 GPS suggestion
33 Milk source
37 Pro
38 Low-budget
cinema ... and,
literally, the four
longest puzzle
answers
41 Program file
ending
42 Two-step, e.g.
44 College URL
ending
45 Lyra’s brightest
star
46 Et __
49 Really dull
51 2005 Christian
Bale superhero
thriller
55 Jackson 5 hairdo
56 Item under many
a top
57 Requiring
quarters, briefly
61 __ Mini: Nintendo
console
62 2003 Disney
animated feature
with talking
grizzlies
64 Hip-hop Dr.
65 New York mayor
before Koch
66 Top-flight
67 “Of course!”

68 Asp cousin
69 Robert’s “Out of
Africa” role

DOWN
1 Puts on gently
2 Basic French verb
3 Victor’s cry
4 Shallows hazard
5 Hip dude
6 Tip of a Bic
7 Set straight
8 Claim
9 Tabloid subjects
10 Snoop
11 Rolls with rice
12 Salad bar sliver
13 Bandanna cousin
18 Like challenging
push-ups
22 Go on (one’s
way)
24 Comparison
phrase
25 Composer’s work
26 Tablet with Mini
and Pro versions
27 Flaky mineral
28 Hammer end
32 Genesis
matriarch
34 Thought-
provoking
35 Army vet

36 Predict using, as
tea leaves
38 Banjo legend
Fleck
39 “Gotcha, man”
40 Special Olympics
founder Shriver
43 Hunter’s garb, for
short
45 Easily seen
47 Deep-seated
48 Using one’s
passport, say

50 Didn’t sleep
quietly
51 Indecent
52 Burning
53 Takes a shot at
54 Cake words Alice
abided by
58 Düsseldorf denial
59 Like granola bars
60 W. or LBJ
62 Management
major’s deg.
63 __ Honor

By Mark McClain
©2017 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
03/15/17

03/15/17

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

RELEASE DATE– Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

xwordeditor@aol.com

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

FALL 2017‑18 Apts @ 1015 Packard
3 Bedroom - $1380 - basement

1 parking space avail for $50/m per unit

Deinco 734-996-1991

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

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

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!

 ARBOR PROPERTIES 
Award-Winning Rentals in Kerrytown,

Central Campus, Old West Side, 
Burns Park. Now Renting for 2017. 
734-649-8637. www.arborprops.com 

935 S. DIVISION
2 Bedroom + Study Fall 2017 
Max Occupancy is 4
2 Parking Spaces Washer/Dryer
$2190 + Utilities
Cappo Mgmt 734-996-1991

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

4 BEDROOM HOUSE May 2017
New Kitchen & Study 
Wood Floors Throughout
Washer/Dryer, Parking
$2800 + Utilities
1010 Cedar Bend Dr.
734-996-1991

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

FOR RENT

Flubs & Fury: The online 
crucifixion of the famous 

Let’s say a famous person — 

be it Beyoncé, Chrissy Teigen, 
Zach Galifianakis or Jason 
Derulo — made an ignorant 
comment on social 
media 
or 
in 
an 

interview that went 
viral. How would 
you react? Would 
you recognize that 
that person made a 
mistake? Or would 
you 
criticize 
and 

attack the person 
online, disregarding 
any 
possibility 
of 

giving the person a 
chance to apologize 
or clarify first? 

For most people, the latter 

seems like the more common 
response.

Because social media exists 

in a vacuum, there is no middle 
ground or room for when a 
person, particularly a celebrity 
or 
notable 
personality, 

receives 
vehement 
outrage 

for doing or saying something 
wrong. 
Online 
users 
have 

built idealistic expectations 
for how famous people and 
activists 
should 
present 

themselves 
without 
taking 

into consideration that famous 
people 
sometimes 
make 

mistakes and not everything 
they say should be taken at face 
value.

Even when celebrities make 

a statement or do something 
that isn’t inherently wrong 
or malicious, people will still 
react negatively if it’s even 
remotely problematic.

Take Emma Watson, for 

example. 
This 
past 
week, 

the “Beauty and the Beast” 
actress stirred some online 
controversy 
after 
posing 

semi-nude for a Vanity Fair 
photoshoot. Folks on Twitter, 
such as talkRADIO host Julia 
Hartley-Brewer, 
saw 
this 

as hypocritical to Watson’s 
proactive stance on feminism. 
In response, Watson defended 
herself in a press tour interview, 
remarking 
that 
she 
was 

stunned by misconceptions on 
her photoshoot and reiterating 
how 
feminism 
is 
“about 

freedom. It’s about liberation. 
It’s about equality. It’s not — I 
really don’t know what my tits 
have to do with it.”

Apparently, 
that 
wasn’t 

enough 
for 
some 
people. 

Several 
Twitter 
users 
dug 

up a 2014 interview with 
Watson that revealed her own 

discomfort 
with 

Beyoncé’s 
“Drunk 

in Love” video as a 
positive expression 
of 
feminism, 
as 

well as her own 
distaste for posing 
nude. 
Again, 

Watson 
defended 

herself, 
tweeting 

a 
screenshot 
of 

that 
interview, 

expanding on the 
context of her words 
that 
had 
become 

diluted by devout Beyoncé 
fans. 

What’s 
incredible 
about 

this kind of attack against 
Watson is not just that she 
had to defend herself twice 
for expressing herself, but that 
people took her words from an 
article from three years ago 
to justify Watson’s so-called 
“white feminism.” It’s almost 
as if people online can’t give 
famous people like Watson a 
break and recognize that their 
views and beliefs can change 
over time.

In 
addition 
to 
Watson, 

“Americanah” 
author 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie 
caught some flak on social 
media recently for comments 
she made in an interview 
with Channel 4 News. When 
asked about whether or not 
transgender 
women 
should 

be 
considered 
“women,” 

Adichie responded by saying 
that “trans women are trans 
women,” 
a 
statement 
that 

many, specifically the trans 
community on Twitter, deemed 
transphobic. “It’s difficult for 
me to accept that then we can 
equate your experience with 
the experience of a woman,” 
Adichie said further, “who has 
lived from the beginning as a 
woman and who has not been 
accorded those privileges that 
men are.”

After her comments went 

viral 
on 
Twitter, 
Adichie 

clarified 
her 
position 
in 

a 
lengthy 
Facebook 
post, 

reinforcing her support for 
the rights of trans people 
and explaining the societal 
privileges 
and 
differences 

between cis and trans women. 
Some trans women, including 
Marit 
Stafstrom, 
embraced 

Adichie’s 
clarification, 
but 

others nevertheless remained 
bitter.

In one particular criticism, 

trans activist Raquel Willis 
tweeted 
in 
response 
to 

the 
interview, 
stating: 

“Chimamanda 
being 
asked 

about trans women is like 
Lena Dunham being asked 
about Black women. It doesn’t 
work. 
We 
can 
speak 
for 

ourselves.” Granted, in this 
case, it’s important to call out 
Adichie for saying something 
that may not have intended 
to be harsh but nevertheless 
was. In fact, Willis’s thread, 
which explained at length 
about the significance of trans 
representation in mainstream 
society, was a great, nuanced 
teaching moment for Achidie.

But what is also important 

for online users is to recognize 
that we should be open-minded 
to the idea that someone, 
celebrity or not, can take 
responsibility for their actions 
and realize their mistakes. 
There are plenty of celebrities, 
such as Alec Baldwin, Justin 
Bieber and Justin Timberlake, 
who 
have 
been 
guilty 
of 

saying something stupid and 
getting 
brutally 
ridiculed 

online before they could even 
apologize. Impact is always 
more important than intent, 
but we can’t expect everyone 
to know that. Social media 
has condensed information so 
immensely through sound-bite 
headlines that we’ve become 
so accustomed to accepting 
whatever is thrown at us, 
especially when it’s taken out 
of context.

There’s this presumption 

that 
famous 
artists 
and 

activists should conform to 
our own system of beliefs and 
values online. As a matter of 
fact, it is dangerous to presume 
that a famous person should 
simply be morally conscious 
24/7; 
it 
suggests 
that 
we 

possess moral entitlement and 
authority over other people. 
If we don’t take a grain to 
salt 
every 
time 
someone 

famous did or said something 
egregious, then there may be 
no celebrities left to trust.

SAM

 ROSENBERG 

SOCIAL MEDIA COLUMN

For over two decades, The 

Shins 
have 
been 
pumping 

smooth, altruistic indie jams 
into the hands of their fans. 
Most recently, their fifth studio 
album Heartworms, comprised 
of 11 tracks, proves that The 
Shins still have a firm grasp 
on that alternative melancholy 
feel 
that 
they 

hone so well.

Like 
their 

other 
albums, 

the majority of 
the 
songs 
on 

Heartworms 
embody 
a 
similar 
sound. 

Perfect for background noise 
while studying or chilling, the 
asethetic of the album can best 
be described as gypsy, yoga, 
riding my bike through Cali 
with the wind and beach breeze 
blowing 
my 
way. 
Though 

the album in its entirety is 

enjoyable, it can be hard to pick 
a single track that stands from 
the rest. Still, three songs feel 
distinct: “Rubber Ballz,” “Dead 
Alive” and “So Now What.” 
Each possesses unique rhythms 
and lyrics that are memorable 
both in the context of the album 
and in isolation.

“Rubber Ballz” begins with 

some ping-pong Beach Boys-
esque 
vocals; 
the 
jubilant, 

upbeat rhythm and safe, PG 
lyrics work together to paint 

a 
portrait 
of 

nostalgia 
and 

better times.

“Dead 
Alive” 

brings the edgy 
melancholy. 
With 
unique 

instrumentation 
and 
an 

undoubtedly catchy rhythm, 
it feels like an ode to a chilly, 
mysterious October evening.

The most iconic song on the 

album, though, is “So Now 
What,” which was a single on 
the motion picture soundtrack 
for the 2014 critically acclaimed 

film 
“Wish 
I 
Was 
Here.” 

Featuring The Shins’ hallmark 
shimmering 
instrumentals 

and ethereal vocals, “So Now 
What” preys on your emotions 
in every way music is supposed 
to. It culls dusty memories to 
the forefront of your mind, 
makes you think and analyze 
again and again.

The remaining eight tracks 

on the album are not auditory 
flops, but they do lack the 
distinction of songs like “So 
Now What” provoke. All in all, 
Heartworms is a fine album. 
The thing about The Shins is 
that all of their albums, when 
analyzed as a collective unit, 
aren’t 
anything 
amazing. 

There’s no The Life of Pablo 
or Revolver; to make a perfect 
album where each song is great 
on its own and as a part of the 
album is rare. Still, The Shins 
always manage to produce at 
least two great songs on every 
album that will stand a decent 
test of time; at the end of the 
day, that’s still respectable. 

DANIELLE IMMERMAN

Daily Arts Wrtier

Heartworms

The Shins

Columbia Records

COLUMBIA

FOX SEARCHLIGHT

‘A United Kingdom’ is a mess

Feel-good movies about race 

relations are an oxymoron, and yet 
Hollywood just keeps churning 
them out, doesn’t it? They’re easy 
to pick out by virtue 
of always having 
one “Good White 
Person” amidst all 
the 
“Bad 
White 

People.” You know, 
someone kind and 
so ahead of their 
time that they don’t 
even see color and 
they’ve always thought racism was 
bad, see, they just needed a push 
to stand up to their “Bad White 
Friends.” White viewers watch 
these movies, and we identify with 
the “Good White Protagonist,” of 
course. Because we totally would 
have been Kevin Costner beating 
down the sign in “Hidden Figures” 
if we had been alive at that time, and 
we definitely wouldn’t have been 
complicit in the institutionally-
mandated racism.

Yeah, I didn’t like “A United 

Kingdom” very much. Directed by 
Amma Asante (“Belle”), the film 
tells the real-life story of Seretse 
(David Oyelowo, “Selma”) and 
Ruth Khama (Rosamund Pike, 
“Gone Girl”), a biracial couple 
grappling with British imperialism 
in the late 1940s. Seretse is the heir 
to the throne of the African country 
Bechuanaland (now Botswana). 
He meets Ruth, a British secretary, 
while in law school in London. 
The two fall in love and decide 
to get married, a choice which 
threatens the diplomatic security 

of 
Bechuanaland, 
a 
British 

protectorate state. They receive 
opposition from both the British 
government and Seretse’s tribe 
back home, who see Ruth as an 
extension of Britain’s imperialist 
arm, trying to co-opt their years 
of tradition and national pride. 

The film details the 
couple’s 
attempts 

to become accepted 
by the people of 
Bechuanaland 
while 
grappling 

with the diplomatic 
nonsense 
the 

British government 
continually throws 

at them.

I’m sure that the real life Seretse 

and Ruth Khama were absolutely 
incredible, 
wildly 
interesting 

people. They led their country to 
independence, overcame horrible 
intolerance and devoted their lives 
to serving their people. Their film 
counterparts, however, have all 
the personality of some very pretty 
blocks of wood. Oyelowo and Pike 
are both wonderful, charismatic 
actors, but they’re not given very 
much to work with here, as their 
characters are simple bastions 
of pure good, free of any flaws or 
conflicts. They know exactly what 
they want secure in the knowledge 
that what they want is just right. 
They don’t grow or change at all 
throughout the film, because they 
are both perfect to begin with, 
without any second thoughts or 
excuses. Needless to say, watching 
perfect people be perfect together 
isn’t very interesting.

What is interesting is how much 

the film downplays the actual 
romance between the two. There’s 

a notable lack of chemistry between 
the leads, a fact which isn’t helped 
by the movie’s odd pacing that all 
but skips their initial courtship. 
They kiss for the first time with no 
sparks, and their wedding night is 
perhaps the least sexy sex scene 
since maybe the one in “Gone 
Girl” — and someone was literally 
murdered in that scene. We’re 
supposed to believe their love is 
strong enough for both of them to 
risk their entire families and homes 
for each other, but I don’t buy it for 
a second.

But perhaps the most offensive 

thing about “A United Kingdom” 
is the fact that it’s simply littered 
with “Good White People.” In fact, 
the white people are so good that 
most of the actual intolerance we 
see is on the part of the citizens of 
Bechuanaland towards Ruth. It’s 
really baffling for a movie that is 
quite literally about colonialism 
to frame her as the victim of some 
sort of nonsense reverse racism. 
The white disgust for Seretse and 
Ruth’s relationship is only spoken 
of, hinted even — but never shown.

I really wanted this movie to 

be excellent. It’s about genuinely 
important, 
groundbreaking 

people who made a significant 
impact on the world. They 
deserve to have their story 
told, and told well. They didn’t 
deserve a schmaltzy, feel-good, 
watered down version of what 
happened, too boring to be a 
good love story, and too scared 
of offending anyone to be a 
thoughtful meditation on the 
history. It leaves the viewer 
neither empowered nor inspired 
nor angered. “A United Kingdom” 
makes you feel nothing at all.

ASIF BECHER
Daily Arts Wrtier

“A United 
Kingdom”

Fox Searchlight 

Pictures

Michigan Theater

The Shins revive their sound

6A — Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

