Classifieds

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

EFFICIENCY ‑ 1 & 2 Bdrm Apts 
Fall 2019/20
Rents range $875 ‑ $1850 most 
include heat and water. Showings 
scheduled M‑F 10‑3
734‑996‑1991

STUDENT SUMMER STORAGE
Closest to campus, Indoor, Clean, Safe
Reserve now at annarborstorage.com
or (734) 663‑0690

By Peter Koetters
©2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC
03/22/19

Los Angeles Times Daily Crossword Puzzle

Edited by Rich Norris and Joyce Nichols Lewis

03/22/19

ANSWER TO PREVIOUS PUZZLE:

Release Date: Friday, March 22, 2019

ACROSS
1 Foretold
9 Biblical spy
14 California resort 
island
15 Let up
17 Embattled World 
War II city
18 Lady of Las 
Palmas
19 Absolutely 
bonkers
21 Source of a 
mole poblano 
ingredient
24 “Now, where __?”
25 Spans often 
presidentially 
named
26 ’60s Hagman 
co-star
28 Turn
33 Rapper __ 
Wayne
34 Marble piece
35 Czech currency
36 Capital ESE of 
Kabul
38 College student
39 Partner of Marcus
40 Zeno’s home
41 Just out
42 Log
43 Deal preceder
44 Place to nosh on 
a knish
45 Musician 
Rundgren
47 Braves slugger
48 Nation of Islam 
leader who was 
a mentor to 
Malcolm X
54 Edible oil
55 Online 
annoyances 
needed to 
complete five 
puzzle answers
59 More disturbing, 
as details
60 Licorice-flavored 
brew
61 Because
62 Demoted to the 
minors

DOWN
1 Many Chrome 
runners
2 Muppet Rizzo, 
e.g.
3 Greek vowel

4 Burrito seller’s 
array
5 Ginsburg 
associate
6 Actress Gershon
7 Many an RPI 
grad
8 Limited-access 
internet area
9 Honduran homes
10 He played Fish 
on “Barney 
Miller”
11 Legal scholar 
Guinier
12 “The most 
private of private 
schools”: Hugh 
Laurie
13 Marine threat
16 It holds water
20 Bled
21 2010s Caesars 
Palace regular, 
familiarly
22 Out of the sack
23 “Heads or tails”
26 Vigorous spirit
27 Pat
29 Claim discovery, 
perhaps
30 Phone in crime 
shows
31 San __, Texas

32 Tongue-in-cheek 
award eponym
34 Wisenheimer
35 Proposal support?
37 __ Zion Church
38 Last: Abbr.
40 Turn into
43 Naval brass: 
Abbr.
44 Stifled
46 Orchard Field, 
today
47 Not to be missed

48 Cardio readout
49 Indochinese 
Peninsula nation
50 Cross letters
51 Become part of
52 Refine
53 Could hear __ 
drop
56 Volume One 
words, perhaps
57 Morning coat?
58 Title of respect, in 
Tokyo

FOR RENT

SERVICES

Raise the ruff!
It’s Friday!!!

I would be one of many 
classic rock fans to be elated 
in 
the 
wake 
of 
another 
Woodstock. The age in which 
it fell is a period of time I’ve 
always been obsessed with, in 
a way that has greatly colored 
my understanding of modern 
pop 
culture. 
Everything 
I 
listen 
to 
or 
watch 
is 
immediately compared to the 
media of the ’60s and ’70s, 
the media that I was raised 
on and developed my own 
love for as I grew up. I am the 
poster child for that languid 
teenager 
self-proclaimed 
to be “born in the wrong 
decade.” Yet despite that love 
for the Aquarian age, 2019’s 
upcoming 50th anniversary 
celebration of the first, most 
famous Woodstock festival 
stings more than expected. It 
makes me wonder if we will 
ever have something truly 
like Woodstock ’69 again.
Let’s first understand the 
context in which the original 
Woodstock came to fruition: 
a small festival was planned 
to be held in upstate New 
York in the blazing heat 
of August. They expected 
50,000 people — 400,000 
came. From those conditions 
and the social revolution 
of America’s hippie golden 
years, Woodstock ’69 became 
a lasting memory in the 
consciousness of music lovers 
and pop culture aficionados 
alike. People (literally) broke 
down barriers to enter. It was 
a magical, if not chaotic,three 
days in a time full of creation 
and destruction set against 
the war in Vietnam. 
You get the jist: the 
festival 
would 
be 
hard to replicate in 
any era, even its own. 
Everyone knows the 
name Woodstock.
In this recognition 
and 
respect 
for 
the original shows 
my 
problem 
with 
Woodstock’s 
50th. 

Although 2019 is a year of 
similar revolution, for rights 
and positive change in the 
entertainment 
industries, 
it is disheartening to know 
that we are fighting for 
the same things now that 
we did then. The Gloria 
Steinems and Marvin Gayes 
of yesterday’s pop cultural 
landscape are reflected in 
figures we know and love 
today. In that way, this year 
would be a perfect time for a 
remembrance of Woodstock, 
to think about the things we 
have done and still have yet 
to accomplish for rights and 
the progression of artistic 
freedom. I acknowledge this, 
and understand its influence 
on the decision to have a 
memorial festival in the first 
place. No, my issue is not 
with that aspect of the 50th 
it is with the music.
The final lineup released 
this week was, to say the 
least, disappointing. It is 
not all bad, and serves as 
an eclectic mix of today’s 
artists, old and young. With 
Imagine Dragons headlining 

the third day, the focus 
on the mainstream acts of 
music today waters down 
the spectacular returns of 
performers 
like 
Santana, 
who memorably played at the 
original festival, and those 
who never got a chance to in 
1969, like Dead & Company, 
Grateful 
Dead’s 
modern 
iteration 
including 
John 
Mayer. Maggie Rogers is 
great, sure, so is Greta Van 
Fleet. But these acts fail to 
capture 
the 
unmatchable 
feeling 
conjured 
by 
the 
original Woodstock.
And herein lies the crux 
of the situation: the majority 
of today’s music does not 
have the raw, revolutionary 
quality 
of 
many 
of 
the 
acts included in the initial 
festival. Maybe it is the time 
we live in, maybe it is the 
fact that fame and success 
are 
very 
different 
beasts 
than they used to be. Maybe 
it is because the acts that 
are pushing the envelope 
on 
musical 
innovation 
are equaled in the lineup 
by ones that are just OK. 
Nonetheless, regardless of 
the music’s quality in general, 
I genuinely don’t believe any 
other time could capture the 
magic of Woodstock better 
than 1969 could. The 25th 
anniversary festival in 1994 
didn’t, so why do people 
believe that 2019 can? Part of 
why the original Woodstock 
remains in our memory today 
is its accidental nature no 
one expected those three 
days to become as much of a 
cultural touchstone 
as they are. It was 
a wild world then, 
and it is now. But I 
don’t know whether 
that’s 
worth 

replicating the same 
serendipitous genius 
that 
produced 
Woodstock. 
And 
I believe that it is 
foolish to even try.

DAILY GENDER & MEDIA COLUMN

CLARA 
SCOTT

Beef with Woodstock 50

On 
Tuesday 
I 
was 
fortunate to attend the world 
premiere 
of 
“Inhuman,” 
a 
short 
film 
by 
Haley 
Tibbenham, a junior in the 
School of Music, Theatre & 
Dance. Ten other members 
of the cast and crew were 
present at the premiere, 
including 
director 
of 
photography 
Joshua 
Knoller 
(his “Talk to Me” 
was an Official 
Selection at the 
Cannes 
Film 
Festival in 2016). 
“Inhuman” 
is 
“not 
your 
average 
high 
school 
Rom-
Com,” according 
to 
the 
film’s 
Facebook 
page. 
For a no-spoilers 
plot 
rundown: 
The film follows 
Alice, 
her 
“friends” 
who 
think she should 
be thinner and 
Elliot, the nice guy with 
a romantic interest in our 
teenage lead. Alice isn’t 
too keen on Elliot, for a 
reason which will be made 
clear in the final scene. (A 
hint to keep you engaged: 
pay attention to the books 
mentioned 
during 
the 
beginning 
of 
the 
film.) 
Partially shot in Holland, 
Michigan, the beach scenes 
are beautiful — the film 
makes use of a relatively cool 
color 
palette 
throughout, 
with 
a 
few 
intentional 
bursts 
of 
crimson. 
The 
iconic Holland lighthouse 
is one of these cochineal 
punctuations. The framing 
of 
this 
particular 
scene 

echoes Wes Anderson, in 
the best possible way.
By the time the credits 
roll, you get a sense that 
this is a film complete in 
its entirety. By this, I mean 
to say it reaches its full 
potential only by the end of 
its final scene. Independent 
of the exciting plot-twisting 
at the end, the film has 
a 
certain 
superficiality. 

Initially, the subject matter 
and dialogue lack depth, 
and ask little of the viewer. 
I 
enjoy 
being 
absorbed 
and interrogated by a film. 
Inhuman doesn’t interrogate 
or 
challenge, 
until 
the 
last moment. That being 
said, watching the credits 
appear brought a smirk to 
my face. The foreshadowing 
and 
cinematographic 
hints 
began 
to 
make 
sense. 
What 
appeared 
initially superficial became 
multidimensional.
In a short Q&A after 
the premiere, Tibbenham 
(director, writer and star) 
said she wanted her film to 
be viewed not as an identity 

piece. She believes labelling 
a work of art an “identity 
piece” can be patronizing, 
and 
only 
applies 
to 
underrepresented 
groups. 
This is part-rom-com, part-
fantasy. Tibbenham wanted 
to make a film in which 
someone “different” could 
be the star, someone outside 
the visually homogeneous 
battery of A-list actors and 
actresses. For 
a 
film 
that 
deals 
with 
self-image 
and 
self-
confidence, it 
takes a novel 
approach and 
encourages 
the viewer to 
question 
all 
sides of the 
debate. 
Not 
only 
should 
we not force 
ourselves and 
our friends to 
fit a certain 
mold, but we 
should 
also 
not 
expect 
those 
who 
don’t 
fit 
to feel a certain way. To 
broaden 
the 
argument, 
being 
an 
ally 
means 
different things in different 
situations. “Inhuman,” in 
the most fantastical way, 
reminds the viewer that you 
may not always know what 
someone is going through. 
Calling the film an identity 
piece is an “injustice to how 
interesting 
this 
content 
is,” Tibbenham said. That 
content, 
about 
what 
it 
means to be a woman today, 
under pressure for society 
and peers, is important. 
“Inhuman” puts a novel spin 
on commonly used themes, 
a refreshing take on genres 
which can often feel limp.

‘Inhuman’ is 15 minutes
topped with satisfaction

FILM REVIEW

ROSS ORGIEFSKY
Daily Arts Writer

Here’s how I know that the 
word “feminism” is stigmatized. 
Until 
recently, 
I’ve 
said 
the 
words 
“I’m 
a 
feminist” 
self-
consciously. I’ve 
gotten 
some 
uncomfortable 
laughter, 
quick 
looks downward 
and blank stares. 
Encouraging 
smiles 
have 
been 
few 
and 
far 
between, 
especially when 
talking to people 
of the opposite 
sex. So, why the 
stigma?
As a 20-year 
old 
female 
of 
color, I’ve come 
to 
realize 
that 
a 
lot 
of 
the 
problem 
stems 
from 
feminists 
being 
labeled 
as 
“aggressive.” 
This 
isn’t 
unique to those 
courageous 
enough 
to 
openly 
fight 
for 
feminism; 
numerous studies 
have shown that 
women who are 
seen as forceful are also seen 
as less competent. People take 
women less seriously if they 
seem angry or frustrated about 
an issue, and many label them 
as the infamous “sensitive.” 
There’s nothing worse than 
letting 
your 
passion 
for 
something show only to be told 
to “calm down.”
Not 
surprisingly, 
no 
one 
knew this better than Frida 
Kahlo. And no one defied the 
notion that women should fit 
a carefully-constructed mold 
more than she did.
I remember seeing one of 
Kahlo’s self-portraits as a child 
and thinking: How did she 
have the courage to look like 
that? Her eyebrows seemed to 
inch closer to each other with 

every passing second and her 
moustache was accentuated by 
the bright light shining from 
the museum display. Her eyes 
stared back at me defiantly, 

daring me to ask the question 
on my lips. “Yes, this is me,” she 
seemed to say. “Deal with it.”
Kahlo was unapologetically 
herself; this is easy to see in 
any of her self-portraits. At the 
time, she was in stark contrast 
to myself — a sophomore in 
high-school 
growing 
into 
accepting 
myself, 
but 
still 
largely self-conscious of my 
body and appearance. Kahlo 
had 
reached 
this 
level 
of 
understanding already, and left 
her public image up for scrutiny 
in the late 1930s, a time when 
women 
were 
treated 
much 
differently then they are today. 
You have to admire her level of 
consistently not giving a damn.
Take, for example, Kahlo’s 
“The Suicide of Dorothy Hale.” 

Originally 
commissioned 
to 
commemorate the life of a 
young minor actress, Kahlo 
instead 
painted 
the 
scene 
depicting Hale’s actual suicide. 
Hale’s 
body 
lies 
beautifully 
on 
the 
ground, 
immaculately 
dressed in a black 
evening dress but 
surrounded 
by 
blood. The white 
towering building 
looms over her, 
but 
it’s 
clear 
where the focus 
of 
the 
painting 
lies. Kahlo chose 
to 
bring 
her 
audiences 
face-
to-face 
with 
suicide instead of 
celebrating a life. 
Why? Because she 
could. 
And 
she 
did.
Most of Kahlo’s 
works are filled 
with 
intimate 
symbolism, 
and 
nothing 
sings 
symbolism 
than 
“My 
Birth,” 
in 
which 
Kahlo 
imagines 
the 
birth of herself. 
The 
graphic 
painting hints at 
Kahlo’s struggles 
with 
infertility 
after 
a 
near-
fatal bus crash at 18 years old. 
Infertility is stigmatized even 
today, but Kahlo had no issues 
letting the public know about 
her problems. Nothing was 
too gruesome to be painted in 
Kahlo’s mind.
Kahlo 
was 
revolutionary 
beyond her times, but she taught 
me very little about myself five 
years ago. Now, I’ve come to 
realize how extraordinary a 
feminist she was. Today, she 
teaches me that it’s OK to be 
weird and different if it’s you. 
Kahlo’s bold spirit may have 
been seen as “forward,” her 
appearance may have been seen 
as untidy, but she was utterly 
content with being herself. 
That’s a lesson I believe all of 
us can learn from.

What Frida Kahlo taught
me about myself over time

COMMUNITY CULTURE NOTEBOOK

At the time, she was in stark 
contrast to myself — a sophomore 
in high-school growing into 
accepting myself, but still largely 
self-conscious of my body and 
appearance.

TRINA PAL
Senior Arts Editor

The final lineup released 
this week was, to say the 
least, disappointing.

Inhuman

Mar. 12, 2019

6 — Friday, March 22, 2019
Arts
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

