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