Tuesday 8th July 2025
Blog Page 1019

“It’s as though I’m being watched”

On one side a black and white aerial photograph of the courts at Wimbledon; on the other just my name, address and a first class stamp. The space where you’re supposed to write the message is still a space. Empty, as always.

Perhaps she bought it on a whim from the gift shop at centre court whilst I had gone to fetch ice creams. Or maybe she saw it on her walk through town after I’d said goodbye at the station.

She has left the postcard blank. And now here it is, wonderfully naked, on my doormat. It overrides my thoughts with strawberries skimming red lips, the smell of freshly cut grass at my palms, bare legs casting long shadows over the lawn.

I stick it to the fridge with the others: Kensington Palace, Trafalgar Square, Borough Market, the Globe on a summer’s day – in actual fact it rained through the performance and we both huddled under my raincoat, laughing, and ignoring the drama.

I meet her, as arranged, at the Southbank Centre. She doesn’t have long – only half an hour. I pretend to look at the pictures, but really I am caught in the flicks of her hair as she turns her head from frame to frame.

Another card, as I’d hoped. It’s an abstract painting made up of blue and yellow blotches. I don’t like the picture. It seems sinister to me, the way two of the blue smears join together like furrowed eyebrows above a smeary yellow sneer. It’s disconcerting. It makes me feel as though I’m being watched. I think I said that to her at the time. I had thought she’d disliked it too, so it’s a surprise that this is her choice. But, thinking back, we didn’t agree on many of the pictures. Perhaps she selected it due to our mutual dislike of it.

Again, there is no message: just my name and address written neatly in black ink, with a first class stamp hovering above. I purr to imagine her going back to the gallery at the end of the day and choosing it, pressing a finger to her bottom lip as she considers which one, delicately licking the fresh stamp, holding it lightly between her fingertips as she slips it into the postbox… Before I can stop myself I’ve reached for the phone. She lets it ring so long that I almost hang up. Then her breath at my ear–

You know you’re not to call. David could hear. 

I couldn’t help it. When can we meet?

Tomorrow he’s on business. I’ll come to you.

And she hangs up. I put the card on the fridge.

She arrives late, with plenty of red wine. She pours it out as I slice onions. We abandon it all and go upstairs.

I wake as the light filters into the bedroom – we didn’t spare the time to close the curtains before we sunk to sleep. She is buried beneath the duvet, face turned away from me. I’m starving. I roll out of bed and into my dressing gown, stumble downstairs. There is a card on the doormat. It’s a picture of the Emirates Stadium, just a few streets away. My name and address are written neatly on the right as per the previous ones. The left is blank as before. But this one has no stamp, of course. She must have picked it up when she got off the tube on the way here. I stick it to the fridge with the others and throw bread into the toaster. She comes down in my shirt and sits at the counter. I give her the first slice and offer strawberry jam from the fridge. She removes the lid and dips the corner of the toast straight into the jar. I make coffee.

You got postcards? She says, observing the fridge. I smile knowingly.

I didn’t think you liked that picture. She continues, casually, dipping her toast and gesturing to the blue and yellow splodges. I don’t say much.

Then why did you buy it?

I wait for her to break into a laugh. But she doesn’t. She takes her piece of toast back upstairs and I hear the shower being switched on. I prise the postcards from the fridge and study them afresh, unease brewing within me. It is unusual that I’ve never caught her buying one. In fact, I’ve never seen her even look at the postcards in a gift shop. I’d always thought she was being coy, playing a game, but now… Now that I look at them they seem strange choices – not the ones I’d have expected her to choose. And she doesn’t play games. That yellow sneer turns my stomach.

Panicked, I march to the front door and throw them into the dust bin on the patio. I make more coffee. I drink it quickly, whilst it’s still too hot and it scolds my mouth. A metallic slap ricochets into the kitchen – the sound of the letter box clapping down on the outside. In the hall I discover the cards rehoused on the doormat. Waiting. Above them a shadow looms against the door, darkening the frosted glass. I can’t speak. I can’t move. I can’t think who. The shadow shifts outside, bending towards the letterbox, which lifts slowly to reveal a dark pair of eyes.

I’m David.

“Smash the shit out of it”

The Big Moon play hard onstage, jumping up and down, making quite the ruckus. When I talk to Fern over a questionable phone line, the band have just their Southampton and London shows to go before they can have a rest and it’s no wonder Fern is worn out. As she says herself, “we just go with it and smash the shit out of it.” Even as a drummer, sat down behind her dancing bandmates, her thrashes pack a punch.

The exuberance of the band’s energy onstage, coupled with tight harmonies, is impressive considering they have only known each other for two years. After releasing a series of singles, The Big Moon already have a strong fanbase. Fern tells me about their Hull show which was “just full of kids looking to get absolutely trollied. They were just going mental. There were boys ripping their t-shirts off which was bizarre.” The tour has been mixed age-wise, and no clear demographic for the band has been figured out quite yet. This can be explained logically, because there is no one genre driving the momentum of their sound. Fern says “the songs are like pop songs played by a rock band. I think people are getting more into guitar bands again, but we’ve still got the element of pop; we’re a mid-point for some people.”

Their new single ‘Cupid’, which came out in April, was produced and mixed by Catherine Marks (Foals, Wolf Alice) as the band let someone else into the studio with them for the first time. “We’re used to tracking everything separately, which is a bit sterile. Catherine basically told us to set up and was like ‘Ok, just play.’ Everything you hear, other than doubled-up guitars and vocals, is tracked live. It’s just thrown together, which is why it sounds much livelier. If someone moves, you go with them. It was a lot of fun.” Fern tells me that they’ve started demoing for an album “just so we can see what we sound like not in a rehearsal space.” By my reckoning, The Big Moon will be playing even bigger spaces very soon.

Preview: Splendour

In a small room in an unknown palace, four women wait for the arrival of a mysterious dictator. They are: the absent dictator’s wife (Rosie Richards), her oldest friend (Martina Kavanová), a foreign photographer (Natalie Woodward) and her interpreter (Ellie Mae MacDonald). As the conversation and chilli vodka run dry, we soon become aware that in this strange secluded place, all is not as it seems.

Mischa Andreski has taken on the difficult but undoubtedly worthwhile task of staging Abi Morgan’s politically charged drama ‘Splendour’. Together with her strong all-female cast and crew, this group of performers promise to lead us through the tangled labyrinth that is Morgan’s script. The play itself is incredibly experimental; playing with our concept of time with repetitions, flashbacks and soliloquies. This both traps the audience and characters in the staged situation and simultaneously allows for a greater exploration of the character’s thoughts and feelings, whilst also gradually revealing the context of the oppressive force that threatens to, quite literally, invade their private space.

As well as an intriguing format, ‘Splendour’ aims to tackle relevant and provocative themes. This small cast of brilliant women each portray a character that is wholly different to the other. Richards perfectly embodies the indulgent and oblivious wife, her snappy retorts and escalating drinking habits serve as the first hints that her world is slowly crumbling. Kavanová’s passive and calm demeanor seems cleverly constructed and Woodward’s frustrated confusion at the women around her resonates with the equally bewildered audience. As scenes are repeated like a stuck record, the tension in the room increases exponentially, over and over again we see each character failing to communicate with the other, only revealing truths to the audience. Social dynamics, power and hierarchy are put under intense scrutiny and revealed to be fickle, fragile things that can bend and break. The voices (both exterior and interior) of these four women combines to create an intriguing and compelling vision of a world teetering on the edge of destruction.

‘Splendour’ looks set for being a thrilling piece of drama, with a complex script and an incredibly capable cast, it will challenge even the most experienced audience member’s interpretations. This production promises to deliver a fast-paced, tension-filled evening of drama, deception and dissolution. The revolution is coming, don’t miss out.

Review: House of Bernarda Alba

0

Director Jake Donald’s impressive translation and production of Lorca’s The House of Bernarda Alba, is distinguished by setting the play’s rural, conservative Andalucian town in the even more repressive surroundings of The Cellar. Staging it in the nightclub evokes the play’s darkness: descending the steps to the basement to be greeted with silence and stillness, rather than a reverberating bass line, is arresting. Heavy black speakers frame the stage, acting as the all-important thick walls which incarcerate Bernarda’s daughters in their own home. The back wall is a curtain of black lace, resembling the veil the daughters are forced to wear for the eight years of mourning Bernarda imposes on the household: both wall and veil close them off from the outside world.

Performances are mixed: Alethea Redfern plays Adela with appropriate vivacity as well as a tragic desperation to break out of her mother’s authoritarian regime. Laura Gledhill as Angustias is captivating and eerily timid, but the remaining daughters let the otherwise excellent cast down with disappointingly flat performances. Whilst life in that household would draw the life out of anyone the lines are delivered ritualistically, with so little energy.

Some of the lead roles, however, are outstanding, with Ella Jackson and Camilla Dunhill’s handling of the tense power dynamic between Bernarda and Poncia being of particularly note. As the bridge between the daughters and their tyrannical mother, Dunhill is confident as the omniscient eye of the household, yet jaded by her economic and social submission to Bernarda. Jackson sustains Bernarda’s dictatorial intensity and wilful ignorance brilliantly throughout. However, the stand-out performance is Jessie See as grandmother Maria Josefa, whose unnerving moans permeate the beginning of the play and whose believable madwoman-in-the-attic mania instills palpable terror in the audience.

Visual and sound effects were subtle yet effective, staying true to Lorca’s desire to communicate the injustice of life for women in 1930s rural Spain. The sound of church bells is more like a prophetic funeral toll, and noise of the outside world is brought in just enough to remind the daughters of how unattainable this part of the world is for them, the embroidered flowers on their handkerchiefs representing the closest thing they can get to the freedom of the natural world. The daughters are equally spectral in their black mourning gowns and white nightgowns, and the use of the aisle in the audience breaks the fourth wall to bring the audience inside the prison that is Bernarda’s house. Overall, a chilling reimagining of Lorca’s play, brought to life with emotional intensity and innovative staging.

The Yes to NUS vote hides a real need for reform

0

“Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater,” my friend told me yesterday as I accepted a ‘No Thanks NUS’ pamphlet on the way back to college. You mustn’t, she said, let a relatively minor grievance blind me to the greater good of the Oxford student body.

This is malarkey. The whole of a democracy is not the sum of its parts. Rather, the good of the one is the good of all. Insofar as a society allows the freedom of one member to be infringed upon, it fails to be free. The rights of Jewish students in the NUS cannot be sublimated for the sake of other groups. The obverse is also true, of course. No matter how well Jewish students are treated, it would be our obligation to withdraw from the NUS were Muslim students, students with disabilities, or LGBTQ students discriminated against or made feel unwelcome.

I must admit that I am surprised and disconcerted by the margin of the ‘Yes to NUS’ campaign’s victory. I am struck by the stark divide between words and action. We have heard vocal and overwhelming criticism of anti-Semitism, both in regards to NUS and the Oxford University Labour Club, but there is yet to be any substantial reform. Until such time as a concrete plan of action is formed, I hope and expect that there will be those willing to protest continued injustice. Those calls must be heard and not dismissed on the basis of Thursday’s referendum.

RMF members disrupt Rhodes contextualisation meeting

5

Five members of RMF today disrupted a meeting in Oriel on the contextualisation of the Rhodes statue, Cherwell can reveal.

Sources close to the scene told Cherwell that the individuals entered the meeting some 20 minutes after it had begun, accusing Oriel of hypocrisy and of purposefully hiding the meeting from them.

The entrance of the group of activists, which included prominent member Ntokozo Qwabe, was a surprise to those present in the room, as the consultation was intended for Oriel students only.

Prominent activist Ntokozo Qwabe was one of the five RMF members who disrupted the meeting
Prominent activist Ntokozo Qwabe was one of the five RMF members who disrupted the meeting

The meeting was taking place in the Robert Beddard Room in Oriel’s Rhodes Building, and was being led by the Vice-Provost of Oriel, Annette Volfing.

After the initial confusion that followed the entrance of the RMF members, Ms Volfing requested that the individuals left the room, unless they were Oriel students. With the RMF members refusing to leave, a “shouting match” reportedly broke out, with the Oriel Vice-Provost repeatedly asking that they leave.

Tensions were running high, with one RMF member saying, “This statue is not about Oriel students. This is not a listening exercise.”

The altercation comes several months after Oriel announced that the statue of Cecil Rhodes would remain in place, and that the college would seek to provide a clear historical context for the existence of the statue.

The primary focus of RMF’s anger seemed to be the perceived U-turn made by Oriel. In December, the college released a statement setting out its commitment to conducting a listening exercise on the statue of Rhodes. By January, however, the college confirmed that it would be keeping the statue, despite not completing the listening exercise.

Indeed the RMF members repeatedly attacked Oriel for its actions as they confronted the college’s Vice-Provost and others who were present at the meeting.

“This is not a listening exercise, this is big money diplomacy,” one RMF member shouted, adding, “You want to shut down the voices of thousands of people.”

One RMF member was also heard describing some of those present in the room for the consultation on the Rhodes statue as “white racists”.

As the heated dispute continued, several Oriel members of staff arrived at the Robert Beddard Room. One individual told Cherwell that the RMF members were removed from the college because it was an “Oriel-only meeting”, adding that the RMF activists should seek to arrange a separate meeting with Oriel College to discuss matters surrounding the statue.

Yes please, NUS!

1

Oxford has voted to remain affiliated with the National Union of Students.

The Yes to NUS campaign, led by OUSU President Becky Howe, prevailed with 3,409 votes against 2,430. The elections had a turnout of 27.7 per cent, significantly higher than recent OUSU elections. 136 people abstained.

A spokesman from the Yes to NUS campaign told Cherwell, “We are delighted that Oxford has said, in resounding numbers, Yes to NUS. Now the real work starts. We’ve argued for a strong student movement and now our energies are going towards making that happen. Our immeasurable thanks go to the hundreds of campaigners who have made this happen”

A statement released by No Thanks NUS said, “Obviously we at No Thanks NUS are disappointed with the results of the referendum.”

“While we respect the result, we are also saddened that the campaign was marred by personal attacks from the Yes campaign and electoral malpractice from the NUS itself.”

“This was a David and Goliath contest from the start – a grassroots movement of busy and passionate students on the one hand and full-time sabbatical officers and the apparatus and budget of a national organisation on the other.”

Support for a referendum was triggered by the election of Malia Bouattia to President of the NUS, amidst accusations of anti-Semitism. Nearly 50 Jewish Societies from across the UK penned an open letter to Bouattia criticising her. OUSU voted to hold a referendum earlier this term after a motion was proposed by David Klemperer. The decision to hold a referendum passed with 67 votes against 56, with 3 abstentions.

Universities across the country have held referendums giving students the option to disaffiliate. Oxford joins the universities of Warwick, Surrey, Exeter and Cambridge which have all voted to stay with the NUS. Newcastle, Hull and Lincoln universities voted to disaffiliate.

Richard Brooks, NUS vice president said, “I’m happy to see students at the University of Oxford have voted for OUSU to remain part of their national union. We have a lot of work to do but we are already developing a new democratic structure and look forward to OUSU being part of this process.

“Concerns have been raised by Oxford students about anti-Semitism within NUS and these will not be ignored. We take these concerns seriously and we will act on them. We hope to rebuild trust with Jewish students and work closely with OUSU to address any issues.”

Isaac Virchis, President of Oxford Jewish Society, told Cherwell, “Oxford Jewish Society would like to congratulate the Yes to NUS campaign on its success, whilst expressing our obvious disappointment with the result of the referendum. The result of this referendum must not be taken as a mandate for the NUS to continue in its current state regarding anti-semitism and the welfare of Jewish students.”

“The NUS must reflect on why they have lost the support of an overwhelming majority of our society’s members. Issues such as the applause for arguments against Holocaust commemoration and the anti-semitic comments of Malia Bouattia remain unaddressed. Anti-racism is not a selective ideology where we can pick and choose which oppressions we choose to oppose. The NUS cannot claim to be an anti-racist organisation until it takes the concerns of Jewish students seriously.”

A spokesperson from CRAE commented, “We’re delighted with the result – it’s a huge win for students of colour at a time that we’re fighting the racist PREVENT agenda, rising tuition fees and illegal deportations of students. We’re thrilled that Oxford has voted unambiguously to stand with us and NUS in the fight against this racist government.”

Sarah Clarence-Smith, President of the LGBTQ+ society, told Cherwell, “The LGBTQ+ Society is incredibly relieved to be remaining in the NUS on the basis that it fundamentally improves the lives of LGBTQ+ students, especially given the amazing work of the Trans Campaign, LGBT+ Conference, and contributions it has made to improving student mental health.”

Review: Common People Oxford

Curated by Bestival founder Rob Da Bank, Common People was always going to be a success. This May Bank Holiday weekend, the high-profile DJ brought a diverse selection of bands to Oxford’s South Park, as festival punters were treated to a lavish array of tunes in the sun.

And it was this array – this enormous diversity of bands – which made the weekend so exciting. As with Bestival, where last year’s line-up ranged from Lily Allen to Underworld, it was the variety between Jamie Lawson’s middle-of-the-road sentimental folk-rock and the Sugarhill Gang’s raucous R’n’B bangers that stirred excitement in a crowd likely more used to going to festivals starring either white male guitar bands, or black artists playing R ‘n’ B and hip hop, such is the disparate and closed-minded nature of the industry. Common People offered bands from all ends and sides of the spectrum, celebrating the eclectically wide scope of music that should be enjoyed together.

Katy B’s dance-inspired pop set was lack-lustre to begin with – one lone figure singing over a DJ’s backing track is never going to feel particularly inspiring. But as soon as she was surrounded onstage by backing dancers, joining them in pumping out an energetic, high-intensity routine, it was easy to see why the fun-loving Londoner had been put so high up on the bill.

It was these more high-powered sets which brought the highs of the festival. Public Enemy’s constant cries of “Middle finger to the government!” and “Let’s fight the fucking power!” got the audience in front of the Common Stage riled up to an extent that the music they played took a backseat. I was instead far more intrigued by the hype-man who stood at one side of the stage, not saying anything at all, but twisting a little white handkerchief in the air for the whole of their set.

Admittedly, Craig David’s one-man show consisted only of him standing behind some decks, singing along to backing tracks for his TS5, which started as an exclusive pre-party event at his Miami penthouse. Yet something about the heavy sun that the crowds were treated to all weekend, the hefty club hits he was playing, and maybe the excitement for his name (he is Craig David, after all!), drew one of the biggest crowds of the weekend, and certainly the one most willing to dance. This sentiment sums up the festival – a need for stark musicality or innovation was not always the case. Rather, the crowds wanted big tunes, energetic dance routines, and slick performances.

It was in fact the acts playing the smaller tented stage, The Uncommon Stage, who should be noted for their musical originality. The Oxford music magazine Nightshift curated this stage, putting local bands on a pedestal which celebrated the Oxford music scene at its very best. Esther Joy Lane was a particular highlight of Saturday’s bill, her luscious voice crafting webs above bold synth beats, with the intricate concoctions of her synthesised instrumentation becoming even more apparent when they were left to sound out around the tent without her vocals over the top of them.

As headliners, it is safe to say that Duran Duran and Primal Scream are well past their best. Their sets were fun, but Rob Da Bank’s choice to have them fill his headline slots was not adventurous. Nonetheless, the old-school nostalgia that these safe-bets brought to South Park made up a lot of the charm of the whole weekend. Having two bands that have played the festival circuit time and time again perform their well-known anthems may seem counter-productive when attempting to curate a festival that is new, diverse and largely unheard in the current British music climate. But both 80s bands got the crowd roaring and moving as much as any other, and after a sun-tinged boozy weekend, that’s all you could ask for.

Electoral malpractice plagues NUS referendum

1

The referendum on Oxford’s affiliation to the NUS has descended into chaos with allegations of electoral malpractice on both sides.

At New College, the JCR mailing list has been used to circulate pro-NUS arguments despite a ban on such use of JCR mailing lists by OUSU referendum regulations.

In another mailing-list slip-up, the NUS made use of their own NUS cardholder mailing list to circulate pro-NUS arguments earlier this week, despite this being specifically banned by OUSU’s returning officer for this campaign. The Yes-side have stressed that these were both innocent mistakes.

In Christ Church, meanwhile, No Thanks NUS posters were found to have been ripped apart. No campaigners are not entirely innocent, however, as Yes to NUS leaflets were reportedly obscured by No-side leaflets in Merton.

13335487_10209595850603100_1853771346_n

Regarding the email sent to NUS extra cardholders, an NUS spokesman said, “An email was sent to NUS Extra card holders who signed up to receive further communication from NUS. We feel we have a duty to inform card holders they will no longer be able to access this service should students vote for their union to disaffiliate from NUS.”

The NUS have since changed their position and will send out an apology to the same mailing list later today.

Becky Howe, leader of Yes to NUS and OUSU President, “We got in touch with the RO as soon as we became aware of the email, and we worked with her and NUS to ensure that the NUS sent out an apology.”

These allegations follow on from a violation by the New College JCR access officer, who emailed pro-NUS arguments to the mailing list. Campaigning via JCR mailing lists is forbidden by OUSU regulations.

Becky Howe told Cherwell that using the “New JCR mailing list was an innocent mistake that was then immediately rectified working with the RO and No thanks NUS.”

A spokesman from the Yes side further said, “While it’s clear that staying in the NUS is the best choice for access, this was unfortunately against the regulations. The access rep in question was not on our campaign list, and likely not familiar with OUSU rules.”

The No-side responded, “We were made aware of the breach of the rules quite quickly as we have a number of supporters at New College and were disappointed to learn about it. We would urge the Yes side to respect the rules, particularly in light of concerns raised at other referenda in other SUs”, a spokesman for the campaign said.

Anna Mowbray, the OUSU returning officer, has attempted to resolve this issue by sending a second email detailing the arguments of the ‘No Thanks NUS’ side to the same mailing list.

Aside from controversy over mailing lists, there has been allegations of petty behaviour concerning posters. Louis McEvoy, who originally put up the Christ Church ‘No Thanks NUS’ posters which were later torn down, told Cherwell, “Clearly [disaffiliation] is an important decision and I strongly believe that both sides should be listened to and considered; it’s a real shame that some on the Yes side don’t share this belief. I mean, above all else, ripping up posters is just a terribly petty and childish thing to do.”

13321774_827709347359975_7669440940123501159_n

Louis McEvoy broke OUSU rules himself by posting on Christ Church JCR Facebook group on Tuesday, “Don’t forget to vote in the NUS referendum today (unless you want to stay in. In which case, feel free to forget).” This breaks OUSU rules because it involves campaigning in closed groups.

Anna Mowbray, OUSU returning officer, confirmed this was a violation of the rules and said, “We have hopefully resolved the issue with the Christ Church Facebook page informally.”

Anne Cremin, leader of the No Thanks NUS maintained that the No-side mistakes have been innocent, while the Yes-side have been “flagrant violations”.

“Louis’ rule break was unfortunate but an innocent mistake – he isn’t officially involved with No Thanks NUS and wasn’t aware of the rules. As soon as we were informed of the post on the Christ Church page we contacted him to get him to remove it and the matter was dealt with quickly and efficiently.”

Though, the No side took a less forgiving tone with the NUS’s email violation. “We are disappointed by what appears to be a flagrant violation of the rules by the NUS. The NUS has demonstrated that it has no respect for the democratic rules of our student union”.

Voting for the referendum closes tomorrow (Thursday 2 June) at 6pm. Results will be released at 7.30pm the same day.

Review: Everybody Wants Some!! – antiquated male stereotypes

0

TWO STARS

Linklater’s latest, Everybody Wants Some!!, is a college comedy reminiscent of Dazed and Confused, his 1993 film that followed a cast of high schoolers through their 70s shenanigans. Now he’s hit the 80s and college: classrooms and fields are replaced with nightclubs and frat houses, populated with Space Invaders, discos and silly haircuts.

Like much of his work, the film functions as a plotless meander through 80s cliché. Linklater chooses to open with lead man Jake (Blake Jenner) rocking up to his new home (full of his baseball team mates, the only characters we really get to know) in a vintage car holding literally nothing but a box of records and a baseball bag. This sort of dreamy depiction of the 80s party life never fades; Linklater does an excellent job of curating his soundtrack, decor and outfits to get us to fondly chuckle at old times. The first extended disco scene is wonderful for this, following the crew coolly chasing down girls with idyllic success.

Sadly however, nostalgia is the beginning and end of the film’s entertainment value, largely because of Linklater’s cast of a homogeneous bunch of college baseball players. Whilst looking and sounding different, they are all the same in the two key aspects: stupidity and libido.

The film could probably be summed up with Finn’s (Glen Powell) quip, “We’re just two guys doing anything we can to get laid. That’s who we are.” The result is an unsavoury vision of antiquated male stereotypes. The disco and house party scenes, composed of the identical girl-chasing shtick every time, comprise an excessive proportion of the running time.

The most interesting character (and, perhaps not coincidentally, the only female character given any sort of attention) is only properly introduced two-thirds of the way through: given enough screen time to make you wish she was there earlier. At other points we suffer exceedingly dull 10 minute baseball scenes, in which the same menu of tired themes – competitive men in perpetual fear of various emasculations – is worked through at a mindnumbingly dull pace.

Perhaps this is Linklater’s masterstroke, painting a past of ridiculous and unsympathetic boys, but he fails to do it in anything approaching a witty fashion. Satirising perhaps, but not entertaining.

Where his films usually sacrifice structure for sprawling character studies, Everybody Wants Some!! seems like a formulaic stagger from gag to gag, none of which are particularly well pulled-off . Every line seems to be aiming for something, meaning that little of the dialogue is interesting in its own right. Thus the whole film feel like a checklist of ’80s clichés and character tropes, whilst Linklater’s past successes have all been as aimless and fluid as they are plotless. At the end of the day, you should probably watch Dazed and Confused instead.