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