Monday, May 5, 2025
Blog Page 1226

Hertford College create Women’s Officer position in JCR

0

Hertford JCR has voted to recreate the position of Women’s Officer.

A constitutional change was required for the proposal, with a two thirds majority required for the motion to pass.

The meetings did not go entirely smoothly, with an amendment tabled that caused a “heated debate”, according to a third year Hertford student. Though ultimately defeated, the amendment sought to alter the post to a ‘Gender Equalities’ role.

With 65 for, nine against, and eight abstentions, the proposal passed with a 79 per cent majority. This now allows for the election of a Women’s Officer. The role is yet to be filled.

Alice Vacani, who is chair of the OUSU Harassment Policy Working Group, carried out an anonymous survey of Hertford women that found the majority of women who have experienced harassment were in favour of recreating a Women’s Officer post.

She then proposed the re-introduction of the position, saying, “It was an important position that was currently not represented within the student body.”

With regard to the attempted renaming of the role to ‘Gender Equalities Officer’, Vacani says that such a title would have “simply confused members of the JCR as to the purpose of the rep” and that a Women’s Officer is required to lobby for women who are “still disadvantaged in many ways – from the finals gap to sexual violence, many issues disproportionately affect women compared to men”.

The Women’s Officer, according to the Hertford JCR constitution, is responsible for, amongst other things: lobbying for women’s right within ollege, ensuring policy is inclusive of women, liaising with the tutor for women and JCR Welfare Officers, and organizing consent workshops. The role can only be held by “an individual who identifies wholly as a woman or with a complex ender identity encompassing woman” and can only be elected by such individuals.

Aliya Yule, WomCam Officer, commented,“WomCam is so excited to hear that Hertford has introduced a Women’s Officer position in its JCR. It is vital that colleges introduce better liberation reps – including Women’s Officers, Disabled Students’ Officers, BME/ students of Colour Oficers, and LGBTQ officers – for better representation and to ensure that marginalised voices are listened to within the university.”

Helen Thomas, Women’s Officer for St Anne’s JCR, said, “I’m very pleased bout this great outcome for Hertford. Changing the title to Gender Equalities Rep would have done women at Hertford a disservice.

“It is really important for society to realise that discrimination which is levelled at men often comes about due to the systematic oppression of women,” she added.

Anna Bradshaw, the OUSU VP for Women, was present at the second meeting and commented, “The specific representation of women is essential in all common rooms, and I know that Women’s Officers and Reps in many colleges do some really fantastic work.”

Bradshaw informed Cherwell that New College MCR has also created a Women’s Officer role in their committee this term.

 

Analysis: Mary Reader argues that creating a Women’s Officer position should not be seen as “reverse sexism” 

We still live in a patriarchal society. University is no exception to this rule. 

The very institutional setup of Oxford, I believe, works to reinforce existing patriarchal assumptions and patterns of behaviour. Our society is still dominated by the idea of men as breadwinners and women as caregivers. Within academia, our adversarial style of discourse is generally catered towards self-aggrandisement rather than increased understanding. One of my friends was told by their tutor to “write more like a man” in their essays, because that’s the style of writing that achieves a First. 

No wonder 71.2 per cent of Philosophy academics are men. When women are mostly being taught by men, reading books written by men, and being told to write like men, it is hardly surprising that gender inequality exists in an academic context. 

This institutional sexism rests upon socially constructed gender roles. Patriarchal societal norms permeate all walks of life, affecting the way in which men treat women, the way women interact with one another, and the way women see themselves. 

It is undeniable that there is a ‘lad culture’ in Oxford – rugby crewdates, ‘sharking’ and sexual harassment – that requires active challenge.

When one in four women have had experience of sexual harassment at university in the UK, and a significant number of young people don’t understand the meaning of consent, it is absolutely vital that we educate people about these things, which disproportionately affect women. 

It is also imperative that we provide effective support that caters to the needs of those who are victims of sexual harassment, rape or intimidation.

This is why, given the fact that women are still structurally oppressed, we need Women’s Officers rather than the watered-down, less specific role of Gender Equalities Officers.

Some believe that by describing the position as a Women’s Officer entails a kind of reverse sexism. However, this is premised upon a misunderstanding of the aims of liberation movements; the idea of ‘reverse sexism’ is itself highly flawed. For sexism, like racism, is the result of both prejudice and power.

It is the same misunderstanding that causes men, and women, to refuse the label of feminist on the grounds that it means you somehow place women’s rights above those of men. In fact, intersectional feminism struggles for the liberation of all genders.

To a certain extent, we might ask ourselves “what’s in a name?” But so long as we live in a patriarchal society, having a specific ‘Women’s Officer’ in our colleges is a necessary measure to tackle gender inequality and oppression.

College JCRs overspend in Michaelmas 2014

0

Merton and Keble JCRs have overspent their budgets from Michaelmas term 2014.

With an undergraduate body comprising around 300 students, Merton has a budget of £2,000 for their Entz each term, yet this full sum was spent on Freshers’ Week alone last October.

“A high demand of alcohol from freshers which we didn’t anticipate” was blamed for a near £1,000 overspend last Michaelmas term according to Merton’s JCR Treasurer, Maira Chowdhury. She said that providing free alcohol at their Freshers’ Week and Entz was “one of the major reasons we overspent”.

However, as Chowdhury went on to comment, “This is easy to control really – we should provide as much as we can afford to, not to satiate demand no matter how high it is. This shouldn’t be a problem for next Freshers’ Week.”

Keble College also over-spent last Michaelmas, exceeding a third of their annual budget. Keble JCR President Roseanna Petersen commented, “We give our officers budgets for the academic year. The Entz officers used more than a third of this budget last term, but some of this was on investments such as new lights which will continue to benefit the JCR for the foreseeable future.”

Merton undergraduates were keen to defend the expenditure in Freshers’ Week, with first year Italian and Philosophy student Alex Eperon telling Cherwell, “Freshers’ Week is one the most important times in university life; you meet new people and establish friendships that will last for years.

“Merton’s Freshers’ Week this Michelmas lived up to and surpassed expectations of that. I personally rusticated to change course so can say that it was better than last year’s already exceptional week.

“On the first night, the Entz reps hired out Mad Hatter’s Cocktail bar, which we didn’t have the year before. I think this was probably fairly pricey, but I think it was worth it, as the atmosphere was lively, and people were dancing, but as it wasn’t a club people could just chat and start to get to know each other a bit.”

When asked to comment on Merton bops, Edward Thomas, an Ancient and Modern History first year at the college, told Cherwell, “I quite enjoy them.” He added that Merton’s “no fun” reputation is “ridiculous”.

Merton’s total expenses in Michaelmas term last year amounted to £9,574.80. The total income from capitation fees to the JCR was £8,687.93, leaving the College with a deficit of £886.87.

Chowdhury explained, “Our budget’s just a bit tighter for the next two terms. We’re just cutting down spending a bit by Welfare and Entz to cover the cost.”

Having only discovered that they were overspending at the end of last term, she added that, in Hilary, “Entz are only running bops and events with zero cost, for example Karaoke night.”

Typical expenditure for Entz activities varies across colleges. Data collated during Cherwell’s investigation into JCR spending last term revealed that Oriel spends £3,000 on Entz in a year, with an additional £1,000 spent on Fresher’s week. Jesus College budgets £2,000 for Freshers’ week, and sets aside £2,500 for social events, whilst St. Peter’s College spent £1,000 on Freshers’ Week, and has a £1,000 Entz budget.

St. Catherine’s College, which has 469 undergraduate students, spent £1,600 last term on Entz organised events. Jack Hampton, JCR President for St. Catherine’s College, revealed to Cherwell however that the College is “in a perfectly good financial situation at the moment”.

He continued, “Our JCR in the past has regularly underspent its allotted budget, so this year we have had room to make some capital expenditure projects making use of our surplus.”

The Merton and Keble Entz reps declined Cherwell’s request for cmment. 

Oxford Union Debate Committee in women’s quota controversy

0

The Oxford Union’s Debate Selection Committee (DSC) has sparked controversy by planning to introduce a women’s quota for the Oxford debating team going to the European University Debating Championships.

The policy has been widely disputed within the debating community, with complaints being voiced about the way it was announced in an email. Some claimed that the Debate Selection Committee did not make enough of an effort to bring the issue to the attention of the wider debating community, nor sufficiently open up the topic for discussion.

The Debate Selection Committee is one of the several committees of the Union and is in charge of choosing debaters to represent the Union at external competitions.

Union debater Rex Betan told Cherwell, “As a general proposition I’m in favour of gender quotas. However, I recognise that this issue can be divisive and as a man I feel it is not my place to vote on such issues.

“I agree that having the vote buried within an email was undesirable, but I doubt it was intentional from the Debate Selection Committee. At least they are trying things and gender issues are on the agenda.”

Natasha Rachman, a world championship finalist and one of the Union’s foremost debaters, opposed the introduction of the quota. “Oxford has a comparatively strong history on the UK universities circuit of promoting and supporting female debaters, and is making excellent efforts to improve outreach.

“However, I think that implementing women’s quotas would be a step in the wrong direction. The initial move by the Debate Selection Committee to pass a women’s quota was, I feel, under-advertised, given that this would be a significant and contentious decision. However, following complaints, this was admirably swiftly rectified and I look forward to a productive and open consultation on the issue.”

In reply to indignation caused by the quota, Jamie Jackson, Chair of the DSC at the Union, sent an email to the Oxford debaters mailing list, saying, “It has come to my attention that, although it was mentioned on the email, some consider the issue of discussion about a women’s quota for the European University Debating Championship squad in the future more important than its placement suggested. I realise this is a significant move, and one that some of you will want to have a say on.”

He continued that he would “like to make it clear that anyone is welcome to find out more about the proposed move and share their thoughts” at a DSC meeting in 3rd Week.

Ben Allen, Union debater and St Benet’s third year, commented, “Though I recognise and agree that we have a problem of underrepresentation of women in debating, I do not support the introduction of quotas for one of the most important and largest championships as the way to solve this problem.

“I am much more open to the notion of implementing quotas for women in novice tournaments, and for the training squad in the Union. Even so, I am usually sceptical of quotas given that those selected under them – regardless of merit – may be viewed as tokens, and objects of blame should we underperform at competitions.

“Also – I would point out as well that on the Union noticeboard, the DSC meeting minutes are nowhere to be found (at least when I checked last night).”

This follows a similar motion in 2009, when the Union voted down a move to impose a quota of at least one woman on the DSC after some female debaters labelled the motion “insulting”.

Jackson told Cherwell, “I should stress firstly that this quota is still very much in the discussion phase – Debate Selection Committee has opened a consultation process in order to hear the views of all Oxford debaters on the matter. This means that the size and terms of the quota, alongside its existence, are yet to be determined.

“Ensuring equal participation and success for women in debating is a problem faced by every debating society around the world. Oxford, whilst a long way from ideal, is actually in a relatively good place at the moment comparatively (three of our eight debaters at the Worlds Championship were women).

“We want to ensure, however, that future squads continue this trend and that there is always an incentive for proactive measures to be taken to find and train up excellent female freshers. Unless you believe that women are intrinsically worse at debating, this should pose no threat to Oxford’s competitiveness at the most prestigious tournaments.”

Al Sharpton avoids engaging in Union debate

0

American baptist minister Al Sharpton pulled out of a debate at the Union on Friday night, instead preferring to give a speech before the debate began. Originally scheduled to lead the proposition on the motion “This house believes the United States is institutionally racist,” the Reverend withdrew on short notice from participating in the main debate.

Mr Sharpton had previously been expected to join Black Panther leader Aaron Dixon and liberal blogger Mychal Denzel Smith in supporting the motion, against opposition from Fox News contributor David Webb, conservative commentator Joe Hicks and BBC radio host Charlie Wolf.

A statement on the Oxford Union website read, “Instead of the Emergency Debate prior to the US Racism Debate this evening, there will be an individual address by Rev Al Sharpton as a precursor to the main Debate.”

No further explanation was given and many attendees of the debate were disappointed not to hear Mr Sharpton participate in the debate itself. Instead of debating, Mr Sharpton delivered a wide ranging 45 minute talk at about 7pm.

Other participants in the debate were quick to condemn Mr Sharpton’s
actions. 

David Webb, billed as a “conservative commentator and contributor to Fox News” by the Union, attacked the MSNBC host. 

Speaking to the US news network Breitbart, Webb stated, “He [Sharpton] doesn’t want to be exposed for what he really is – a shakedown artist and racial coward. After years of conning people into giving him money by fanning the flames of racism, he’s just too afraid to have a civil, fact-based conversation about the issues of race in America.”

Al Sharpton is no stranger to controversy in the US. An informal adviser to both President Obama and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, his comments on the Ferguson shooting provoked criticism from the American Right.

In the debate itself, Webb condemned Sharpton as a “coward” for not speaking and the other opposition speakers expressed indignation for not subjecting his views to scrutiny. Outside the debate Webb stated, “It would be wrong to allow Sharpton to get away with just his usual thin, inflammatory rhetoric when this is supposed to be a substantive discussion.”

Student reaction to Sharpton’s decision to avoid the debate was mixed. Ben Evans, a first year PPEist at Univ said, “Given the weakness of the opposition, he wasn’t needed”.

First year historian Jack Edwards commented, ‘‘I was a bit disappointed not
to see him in head-to-head debate. However, his talk was very good and gave us a greater opportunity to question him directly. He was very good but it would have been better if he had spoken and debated.’’

There was some unhappiness from Union officials at Sharpton’s decision. A Union insider told Cherwell, ‘‘Listening to the debate, it became clear that the quality of the speakers wasn’t quite up to Union standard.’’

The Union could not be reached for comment. 

Picks of the Week HT15 Week 3

0

Blackwell’s Presents: Samantha Shannon, Saturday, 3-4pm, Sheldonian Theatre

To celebrate the publication of The Mime Order, Shannon will be discussing her work with Andy Serkis, of The Lord of the Rings fame, and Jonathan Cavendish, co-founder of Imaginarium Studios, which has purchased the film rights to her first novel, The Bones Season.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10919%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Russell Kane & Friends, Saturday, 7.30pm, Glee Club

No-one has ever been to Glee. We know that. But maybe its time to rectify that, with Russell Kane – star of Live at the Apollo, The Royal Variety Show, and Live at the Electric – hosting a night of his favourite comedians, and presenting some of his own comedy too. Yeah, we know he’s not funny, but maybe your mates think he is.

Erik Feig, Tuesday, 8pm, The Oxford Union

President of Lionsgate Motion Picture Group, Feig will be talking about his career in the film industry. With film credits that range from The Hunger Games, to Twilight, to The Hurt Locker, Feig’s talk will provide an insight into the life of one of Hollywood’s leading producers.

Valley Uprising, Tuesday, 9pm, Ultimate Picture Palace

As part of the tenth annual Adventure Film Festival, the Ultimate Picture Palace will be giving a one-off screening of Valley Uprising, a feature-length film chronicling the history of rock climbing in California’s Yosemite Valley. Thrilling, evocative and beautiful, don’t miss the opportunity to see this on the big screen.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10920%%[/mm-hide-text] 

West Side Story, Wednesday-Saturday, 7.30pm, Oxford Playhouse

Rival gangs, the New York Jets and the Puerto Rico Sharks, come face to face in the oppressive heat of 1950s Manhattan. One of two student productions to grace the Playhouse’s main stage this term, West Side Story promises not to disappoint, featuring some unforgettable songs: ‘America’, ‘Tonight’, ‘Somewhere’, and more.

Slow Club, Thursday, 7.30pm, The Bullingdon Arms (aka The Art Bar)

Sheffield duo Slow Club released their debut album in 2009, which was initially categorised as ‘anti-folk’, whatever that means. They arrive at The Bullingdon on Thursday so if you want a taste of their exuberant sounds, rockabilly beats and harmonious hooks, get yo’self down there.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10921%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Charlie Simpson, Friday, 6pm, O2 Academy

Legendary, that’s right legendary, Busted frontman Charlie Simpson arrives at Oxford’s O2 without a band for the very first time. What better way to end a tiring week than rocking out to such classic anthems as ‘Year 3000’, ‘Air Hostess’, and ‘Crashed The Wedding’. It’s 2003 all over again. Note: Cherwell cannot confirm he will play any of the aforementioned bangers.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10922%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Milestones: Restoration Comedy

0

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the recent memories of Oliver Cromwell’s oppressively puritanical turn as Lord Protector, when monarchy returned in the form of Charles II, Britain was in need of a good laugh. The theatres had been closed for the past 18 years, but they were swiftly reopened, and the theatrical fare on offer – and in particular what we now know as the “Restoration Comedy” – was more riotous and raunchy than ever before.

Restoration comedies often feature rakish heroes seduced into matrimony by witty women, but the occasional similarities between works haven’t stopped them from becoming firm favourites of the theatre-going public and actors alike – last year in Oxford we had a well-received production of Etherege’s The Man of Mode, and Farquhar’s The Recruiting Officer, while Our Country’s Good was also a recent choice by our university’s dramatists.

Performed in their original context, these comedies had an added appeal – for the first time, women had been permitted to act on the British stage. The first female actors proved themselves more than capable of achieving levels of fame comparable to their male counterparts, perhaps the most notorious of all being Nell Gwyn, who, following on from her time on the stage, ultimately became the mistress of the king himself.

The trend of having female characters disguise themselves as men really took off post-1660, a fashion cited by some critics as showing additional agency was being afforded to female characters in their taking on of the traditionally male roles in society. However, there’s arguably a more cynical motive at play in this plot device – male dress involved stockings and breeches, allowing the men in the audience to get a close look at the contours of the women’s legs that just wouldn’t have been possible in the more cumbersome female fashions of the time.

Though these arguably more exploitative elements of the Restoration stage might be seen as eclipsing any chance of female success, women in behind-the-scenes roles were having unprecedented triumphs. The era found in Aphra Behn the first female commercial playwright, who was for a time the most performed playwright on the English stage of any gender, her hilarious characters winning over the theatre-going public whilst she somehow found the time to produce novels, translations and work as a spy for the Britain, as well as having affairs with male and female lovers.

Behn’s work, along with that of many authors of Restoration comedies, was neglected in later centuries due to its bawdiness, but has been regaining popularity in recent years. Contemporary readers and audiences might be surprised at how ‘modern’ some of the attitudes expressed in these plays seem. The past might not be such a foreign country after all, and Restoration comedy shows we still share moral preoccupations and sources of comedy with the cultural world of the late Seventeenth Century.

We find in these comedies attitudes that can be both appealing and repellent, but that are always current.

From funny to f*cked: is the British sitcom dead?

0

When the humble British sitcom is done well, it is one of the most enjoyable forms of comedy. If there is one partnership that perfectly exemplifies how well Britain can do a situation comedy, that partnership is Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, particularly with their first show The Office – one of the world’s great creations that I’m sure will come to be remembered in the same manner as the Mona Lisa, Hamlet and The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist.

Its dry British humour, including moments so uncomfortable that you’d rather murder a kitten than look at the screen, combined with addictively funny and loveable characters and a sincerely charming and sometimes emotional plotline, makes it the perfectly moreish TV programme.

Their next project, Extras, depicted the jealous and shallow Andy Millman (Gervais) desperately trying to break out of being a ‘background artist’, and became equally famous. Whilst perhaps not of quite the same standard as The Office (can anything ever be?) Extras was still a strong comedy, and was well received by critics and audiences alike.

To replace that ‘special quality’ from The Office that it inevitably wouldn’t have, Extras added embarrassment and humiliation to its plotlines and introduced Stephen Merchant to the acting scene, playing the incompetent agent Darren Lamb, one of British comedy’s all-time greatest characters.

From here, Gervais and Merchant’s aims for their comedy changed massively, and their work suffered greatly as a result. From Gervais’ string of mildly amusing comedies such as The Invention of Lying to Merchant’s ‘quite funny’ HBO series Hello Ladies, and its awful straight to TV follow-up movie of the same name, the duo have lost that spark that once made their comedy great in attempting to target the US market. The excruciating moments have been replaced with slapstick whilst their emotional scenes are graceless and awkward to watch.

I forgive them for this decline, which was a consequence of broadening their comedy for a larger pay cheque, and I still revere them as the creators of something amazing, but when news of a future project from Gervais and/or Merchant reaches me, such as the up and coming Life on the Road David Brent movie, I find myself not excited, but rather filled with fear that my once loved characters are being ruined.

Although there have been some relatively recent moments of British comedic brilliance, Peep Show, (and the delectable chemistry between David Mitchell and Robert Webb) and Phoneshop to name but two, these are sadly being almost totally overrun by the now notorious British shitcoms, *ahem*, sitcoms, flooding the British market. In shows such as Miranda, Man Down and Friday Night Dinner, slapstick rules supreme and one joke is milked until three series in – when the show ends because the writers have given up and are shivering on the floor in a vast pool of egomania.

The British sitcom is now smothered by attempts to broaden appeal, and a focus on generating money. We might fear that this once great comedic form is on the verge of extinction in its true, genuinely amusing form. But can it be saved?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10916%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The answer to that comes from a new British comedy duo on the scene, and the answer is definitively ‘yes’. This new pair is Allan Mustafa and Hugo Chegwin, the two leading characters in BBC3’s People Just Do Nothing. Written and produced by the duo, along with Steve, a.k.a The Wiggy Mess, and their designated ‘fixer’ Chabuddy G., People Just Do Nothing follows the lives of MC Grindah and DJ Beats, owners of Kurupt FM, a pirate garage radio station in a secret location in West London.

This sitcom, aired in 2014, breathes life back into the British TV comedy scene and is perhaps the most praiseworthy British sitcom since The Office. It certainly has strong parallels with the show, and, on more than a few occasions, Grindah certainly appears to be the David Brent of the underground garage scene.

Despite this slight similarity, the show is refreshingly original and once again achieves that perfect balance between addictive characters, intelligently funny dialogue, and painfully uncomfortable scenes. People Just Do Nothing goes to show that by sticking entirely to British humour at its best, and staying with an idea, rather than expanding it extensively, we can create something truly hilarious and potentially seminal. With the next season coming this year, surely People Just Do Nothing and the DJs of Kurupt FM are the future of British comedy?

Freakshow Television

0

Currently airing is the new series of Bodyshockers: Nips, Tucks and Tattoos.This is a Channel 4 documentary (in the sense of the word that is only ever applicable on Channel 4) fronted by Katie Piper, herself the victim of an acid attack, in which she meets people who have chosen to take their body to extremes, be it through cosmetic surgery, piercings, tattoos, or other painful body modifications, and, most importantly, regret doing so.

The programme shows us the ins and outs of extreme aesthetics, in the most literal sense of the word. It regularly features graphic surgical scenes, and each episode is punctuated by pained groans and people adding to, or removing, their collection of extreme modifications. Bodyshockers is not the only television programme of this ilk. From Embarrassing Bodies (another Channel 4 creation) to TLC’s charmingly named Too Ugly for Love?, British television is full of lifestyle programmes that revolve around unconventional bodies, whether through biological disorders, botched procedures, or simply visible, glaring and brutally regretful decisions.

Bodyshockers paints itself as a semi-charitable enterprise, charting the reversal of the modifications made by its subjects (cue more graphic surgical scenes), as well as pitting them against someone intending to have a similar procedure done, in order to prevent them from making what was for them, a mistake. Often emotional, and always shocking, it would be unfair not to say that I openly admit to enjoying Bodyshockers, and similar modification-orientated programmes.

Where this ever expanding TV genre becomes alarming, however, is in programmes like Too Ugly for Love? or The Undatables, where people’s mental and physical health is paraded across British television under a façade of showing us that they’re ‘just like us’, when really we know that they have been put on primetime TV to tell us precisely the opposite. The Little Couple, Bodyshockers’ ‘parent’ programme Bodyshock and other similar aspects of the ‘documentary and lifestyle’ genre all set out to display the ‘freaks’ of the world: people with conditions that range from minor to completely debilitating. When you realise that Bodyshockers is alarmingly similar to programmes like this, the overall picture becomes much darker. Just because this was something they did to themselves doesn’t really make it any better, or more acceptable; it’s just how we legitimise another covert means of public mockery.

Surely the popularity of ‘freakshow’ TV actually reveals something fairly alarming about the mentality of the typical TV watcher, myself included. We will sit, by choice, taking an hour out of our evening, to watch people who have made irreparable and extreme changes to their bodies, or were simply born slightly different to ourselves, try and go about their daily lives. In reality, I think it boils down to the fact that we like to watch others suffer. We like to see people struggle, to feel intellectually superior to their poor decisions, or to simply feel fortunate that we are ‘normal’. TV like this is designed to make what is ‘average’ or ‘normal’ feel ‘superior’, and when you take a step back and look at it like that, an evening watching Bodyshockers just doesn’t sound so sweet.

Review: American Sniper

0

★★☆☆☆

Two Stars

Americans with nationalist tendencies: look away now. Clint Eastwood’s latest
film, based on the autobiography of Chis Kyle, tells the eulogistic story of a young everyman soldier who, while looking to find himself by shooting the USA’s enemies, grows into the deadliest sniper of the Iraq War.

American Sniper begins with Kyle’s early life, in which he kills animals, beats up bullies (literally liquidising another child’s nose aged about ten) and is taught mantras by his father like, “Never leave your rifle in the dirt.” Church, rodeos and violence shape him as he grows up. When Kyle sees footage of the 1998 Dar-Es-Salaam bombings, he is shocked. His response? To enlist and go kill people; a subtle, tried-and-tested way to deal with terrorism. The rest of the film sees him unfailingly bedecked in wraparound sunglasses, shooting Iraqis. There’s the typical witty banter during the basic training and battle sequences that we’ve come to expect from the modern war film – if this appeals to you, then you should watch Jarhead or Full Metal Jacket instead.

It’s awkward, but one almost knows what to expect from this movie before it begins. The film opens with the Islamic call to prayer and something that sounds like a pulsing heartbeat; immediately something is ominous, but why should it be? Evil Muslims? Surely not! Right on cue, a woman in a hijab turns up and gives a child a bomb. As well as simplistic racial stereotypes and mild Islamophobia, there’s a lot of violence against children in this film; whenever Eastwood wants to make a point, he introduces a young boy who usually gets
smashed up or killed. The exploitation leaves a bitter aftertaste. Ironically, the Arab characters are so panto-evil (drilling children in the kneecaps) that you don’t believe in them, whereas Kyle himself has such an understated stupidity that you really don’t like him.

Early in the film, he asks “Why would you say I’m self-centred? I’d lay down my life for my country. It’s the greatest country on earth.” Thus he inadvertently answers his own question. Sure, we’re meant to feel for the man. He has a girlfriend – later a wife – for whom he wins teddies at fairground shooting games, and children whom we see grow up between his tours of duty. The problem is, he’s so arrogant it’s impossible to want to have anything to do with him other than a quick sit down to explain the failures of Western foreign policy since 2001, and why he represents them inherently. Kyle wears a military medal over his heart on his wedding day. He carries a Bible with him when he enters the field. If his personal relationships are meant
to be emphasised, they are lost beneath a tide of jingoism. He feels vaguely bad when he shoots a child, but he gets over it and is ready to kill another later. Bradley Cooper is usually a decent actor but even he can’t humanise the man who in real life wrote how fun it was to kill “savages” and how he “couldn’t give a flying fuck about the Iraqis”. Are we meant to hate him or not?

It’s not all bad. A duel with an enemy sniper develops over the course of the film that is reminiscent of the best points of Enemy at the Gates, with some great, tense results. The action sequences in general are well-executed. American Sniper is not a badly-made film, it’s just one with a ridiculously simple and frankly incorrect message.

Ultimately, it’s for people like Eastwood, who don’t really see war itself as evil but rather a conflict between good guys and bad guys. This is a Republican’s Hurt Locker. In a good war film you want to see the ills of conflict and the shades of grey but American Sniper has about as much subtlety as Call of Duty. Last week, Michael Moore tweeted “Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders [are] worse”. Naturally, he’s being slated by every rightwinger from Fox News to Sarah Palin to Kid Rock, but I’m inclined to agree.

Death of ‘Sad Dad’

0

We’re all acquainted with spring/summer 2014’s ‘Europeancamper-sandals’ look, granted some of us (me) more than others. But fear not all you financially fretful fashionistas. For while Birkenstocks (the orthopaedic sandal developed in the 50s) were last summer’s must-have shoe, the good news is that you don’t have to pack those sandals away just yet. This winter calls for the doublestrapped Birkenstock Arizonas to be worn with socks.

Katherine Ormerod, Senior Fashion News Editor at Grazia says, “The Birkenstock look is a more affordable take on looks from Prada and Marni.” The socks are crucial. According to Ormerod, “The sock needs to be substantial. Something with a bit of a hiking vibe to it. Best get them in a grungy colour, a grey or an olive or a brown, and wear them a bit slouched down. The whole look needs to be outdoorsy. It can work for men as well as women too, as part of that whole urban woodsman look. You know: the beard, lumberjack shirt, rolled-up jeans, sandals and socks …”

There is absolutely no doubt that this trend will be both comfortable and warm (particularly as Birkenstock have released a new sheepskin-lined Arizona sandal!), but conventionally sexy it is not. So why the sudden penchant for socks and sandals? High street retailer Debenhams has recorded a 68 per cent rise in sales of socks and sandals while the purchases of bright short-sleeved shirts have rocketed by 72 per cent, completing the ‘sad-dad’ ensemble.

According to personal stylist Alain Mehada of Debenhams, this bizarre trend might simply be explained by comfort. “We didn’t see it coming, but perhaps we should have done as let’s be honest there are fewer things more comfy than a solid well-made sandal and a soft pair of socks to stop them rubbing on bare skin.” And regarding the shirts, who can resist a smile when someone saunters past in a garishly bright short-sleeved top? It brightens up the day and brings memories of holidays and beach-side fun, even if you are stuck at home this winter