The youngest member of the Kardashian-Jenner clan recently came out with a new clothing line under the name of ‘khy’ towards the end of October. However, for Kylie Jenner, this is far from a venture into unfamiliar territory, especially given the prior success of her makeup and skincare brands Kylie Cosmetics and Kylie Skin. Following the lead of her older sisters Khloé and Kim, who own and design for Good American and SKIMS respectively, khy will then be Jenner’s first mature contribution to fashion since 2012, when she collaborated with her sister Kendall on a clothing line for American brand PacSun.
According to the website, khy hopes to pioneer the modern wardrobe with pieces and collections ‘that seamlessly blends luxury with everyday style’ and promises to achieve this through versatility of style. This statement is also transparent about the creative process, declaring that the collections for khy will be curated in collaboration with ‘iconic brands and global designers’. For the inaugural drop, Jenner collaborates with Namilia, the brainchild of Berlin-based Nan Li and Emilia Pfohl with a reputation for embracing the provocative. Though a relatively young brand, having been founded in 2015, Namilia has featured in NYFW for five collections, and have gone viral online for their most recent SS24 show titled ‘In Loving Memory of My Sugar Daddy’. Here, Li and Pfohl sought to reclaim the cliché of the gold digger stereotype in a subversive act of celebrating women who take advantage of their hyperfemininity to achieve their ends and make the most of a society that perpetually objectifies them. The designs are equally as controversial as the ethos behind them; characterised by trashy slogans, outrageously-low waistlines, religious imagery, Birkin tops and PU leather, Namilia has a clear desire to stand out. Such is the style of khy’s first collaborator. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Kylie Jenner’s first collection consists mainly of ‘faux leather + base layers’ as described by the brand on their Instagram page. The overall look of the drop might not have derived sole influence from Namilia, however – Jenner’s recent campaign for Acne Studios FW23 anticipates the businesswoman’s interest in grungier, edgier looks, even if this description fails to encapsulate her personal style in its entirety. That being said, when considering the subversive nature of these two established fashion houses, khy’s collection is extremely watered down.
Its capsule collection consists of three dresses made from PU leather in a bodycon silhouette, standard base layers that you could buy from SKIMS if you were obsessed with adding to Kardashian profits, amidst some oversized Matrix-esque jackets and trousers. Perhaps Jenner’s aim was to play it safe with her launch, and it does seem to be working, with certain sizes having sold out only a week after they were put on sale. The prices are not as awful as expected for a celebrity brand, either. I would personally refuse to spend £20, let alone £51 on a nylon baby tee, but it honestly could be worse. Furthermore, Jenner is a billionaire working with an established brand, so the choice of fabrics used in her non vegan leather pieces is rather disappointing. Though I appreciate that the collection is small, nylon and spandex are not biodegradable, and she can definitely afford to source better materials ethically. That being said, I presume Jenner’s concern with designs would have been to achieve a sleek, form-fitting look, which would be attained easier with the composition of materials used in these pieces.
After the rise of celebrity makeup brands a few years ago, more and more are turning to fashion to expand their empires. I look forward to seeing what Kylie’s successive launches will hold, but the launch of khy is lacklustre at best. Indeed, she knows what styles are in, and the design team have a clear impression of how to capitalise on this. However, she could have collaborated with a high street designer or brand to get a similar look. Considering Namilia’s reputation and the plethora of connections that Kylie Jenner has to a diverse set designers and stylists, she could have definitely offered more.
It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. After being unceremoniously sacked from her position, her divisive reign as one of the highest-ranking ministers in this country has come to an end. She has had her fair share of controversy, to put it mildly. She gained notoriety for commandeering the UK Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – a plan which has just been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. She has since compared migrants to a ‘hurricane’, argued that homelessness is a ‘lifestyle choice’, and accused the Metropolitan Police of left-wing bias for allowing a march in support of Palestine to take place on Armistice Weekend.
Many believe these statements to have been part of a meticulously crafted strategy to secure Braverman’s victory in the next Tory leadership election, rather than reflecting her real views. As Owen Jones shrewdly points out, ‘Her demagoguery was always contrived, like she was rattling through a checklist of clichés for any hard-right chancer who aspires to be prime minister.’ With her attacks on the ‘tofu-eating wokerati’, gender pronouns, and even cannabis (which she wanted to upgrade to a class A drug), it is hard to find a culture war box she hasn’t ticked. This has won her infamy even across the Atlantic; CNN characterised her as a ‘Trump tribute act’ and ‘commander-in-chief of Britain’s culture wars’. However, it is hard to believe that these are her sincere views. With her background as a human rights barrister, Braverman must have known that her Rwandan deportation plan would be unlawful; and given that both of her parents were immigrants to the United Kingdom, Braverman’s extreme views on immigration are certainly questionable. It seems as though she simply wants her soundbites and incendiary rhetoric splashed across the headlines, giving her free publicity and shoring her up to become the next leader of the Tory party.
But one must further question why Braverman has chosen to take such extreme, right-wing stances. I suspect it may have something to do with her gender.
It is hardly controversial to argue that women tend to have it harder than men in politics. Data from the United Nations shows that just 15 countries have a woman Head of State and 16 a woman Head of Government, with women making up only 26.5 per cent of parliamentarians. This is due to a variety of factors. For one, despite quotas for credentials and background, accomplished women are less likely than their male counterparts to perceive themselves as qualified to seek office. But more importantly, stereotypes about women and their roles mean that voters and parties are less likely to support female candidates. An influential study in 2003 showed that views about ‘women’s emotionality or competence’ affect voter support, and that party elites’ decisions to support female candidates may be ‘shaped by their perception of voters’ preferences’. This suggests not only that some voters are sexist, but that political parties may choose to de-prioritise women because they fear that voters simply do not like them.
This may be why Braverman has chosen to do what she has done. Women in politics cannot rely on being ‘quietly competent’ – the game both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been playing. Instead, they must adopt loud, firm and clear stances, all whilst avoiding a perception of ‘softness’. Just look at the previous line-up of female Prime Ministers – Liz Truss, Theresa May, and Margaret Thatcher. Truss was in office for too short a time to be fully discussed, though she certainly did not help to fight the stereotype of women as ‘incompetent’. May was criticised for being ‘profoundly weak’, with many joking that she embodied the opposite of ‘strong and stable’ – her mantra during the 2017 general election campaign. Thatcher was the only female Prime Minister to have been viewed relatively favourably, but only because she supported policies to the right of her party, earning her the title of the ‘Iron Lady’. In the Labour Party too, many notable female politicians have assumed strong, uncompromising positions. Angela Rayner publicly criticised Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader. Rebecca Long-Bailey vowed to back all strikes, ‘no questions asked’, when running for Labour Party leader in 2020. In a notable recent case, Jess Philips publicly resigned from her post as a Shadow Cabinet Minister after voting against the party whip in support of a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine war. It seems that across the political spectrum in the UK, female politicians have adopted stronger stances than most men in their parties. This is unsurprising in a world where women are still underestimated and viewed as weak, and where women in positions of power have to work harder to prove that they deserve a place in the room.
In this context, I wonder whether there may be more structural reasons for Braverman’s right-wing stances. In particular, her identity as a woman of colour may have compounded the problem, making her adopt an even harsher stance on immigration, lest she be labelled as soft. I do not seek to excuse the horrendous things Braverman has said and done – she embodies the very worst of right-wing British politics, having used ugly, divisive rhetoric to further her own agenda. As a Labour supporter, I disagree with every single policy she has proposed. However, I do wonder whether she would have adopted the same stances, or whether she would have been nearly as vilified, were she a man. I can admit that I have felt less upset and less betrayed when Nigel Farage, a man, has made similarly vile comments on immigration. I am therefore unsure whether or not I subconsciously hold double standards for male and female politicians.
All this hypothesising may be wrong. But if it is true that she has adopted a more radical position because she is a woman in politics, I might be able to find just a tiny amount of sympathy for Suella Braverman.
Image Credit: ukhouseoflords, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
With Oxford Union elections right around the corner, Cherwell decided to sit down with the two candidates hoping to become Union President in Trinity 2024. They discussed their qualifications, reasons for running, and exciting visions for the Union’s future.
Julia Maranhao-Wong
Briefly introduce yourself. Who are you? Which college are you at and what do you study?
I’m Julia Maranhao-Wong, St. Anne’s College, second-year PPE.
Why are you running for president?
A fun fact about me is that pretty much since week two of Michaelmas I’ve always kind of been running an election – it’s always been a really really massive part of my time in Oxford. And I guess I made a lot of my really really close friends there and that was why I originally started.
When I actually joined, I got really interested in the committee side. And then I realised – some people across the University have a massive issue with the Union. And I was so confused! I realised that obviously a lot of them take issue with the controversial speakers we host – so I want to emphasise that the Union’s not trying to platform people like Kathleen Stock for instance, or any kind of extremely conservative or liberal politicians. The whole point is to bring them in to challenge them.
You can find celebrity and politician interviews on YouTube or anywhere, right? If I wanted to see someone chat with like Tucker Carlson, I can find them on YouTube. But the whole point is that people are actually supposed to be able to get new things out of them and I really want to sort of recenter on that.
If you could highlight two points in your manifesto, what would they be?
I’m the only candidate that actually fulfilled any pledges made at Trinity. I filled every single pledge that I made internally. That’s probably my biggest thing. I think that when you want to take a position, responsibility and organisation is really important for your work. I think that’s what makes me very, very different from any candidate is that I’m the only one to have done that. I also believe in under-promising and over-performing. I pledged three socials and then I was responsible for eight. I’ve also worked more vacation days.
And then one programme I’m really really passionate about is Union scholarships. I think that there is a real possibility of getting funding for a living scholarship program, which would give away membership to somebody who was interested and qualified. The other thing that I think I want to focus more on is grant applications, because I think one of the biggest issues seen in accessibility is just the price like it is. And the way that we make that better is by doing better fundraising on committee.
What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?
I do think committee culture matters a lot to me. And this isn’t to necessarily say that we have a bad committee culture, because I quite like committee culture as it is. But I want to make it something that works for everyone because I think that when a committee has a really good vibe going, that expands membership.
So one of the things that I was actually very, very passionate about is mandated welfare reporting for officers. I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve always felt very, very comfortable in the Union. But I think that it’s really important that we do have mechanisms in place where people actually know who to go to. And I think it’s important that specifically the officers take more responsibility for that.
You’re American. How do you feel about potentially leading a historic British institution?
I’m somebody who probably traditionally should have felt on the outside [of the Union]. My mom is half Brazilian and half French, and my dad is Chinese. So I’m Latino-Asian. And I’m also not from this country. And I’m a woman.
And I think it’s one of those things where, yes, they will absolutely make jokes about me being American. And I do think that sometimes I do feel like I have to work a little bit harder to show that I’m competent. I feel like you see that in my manifesto: I’m like, I swear I’m competent, guys, I’ve done it all. And I have been lucky to have some very, very British people backing me!
How do you feel about the limited competition in Union elections?
I mean I’m very very happy to be contested. I do think that I am the most competent candidate. But I would say that I’m definitely happy that people have a choice [this time]. I think you get better at every level when it’s contested.
If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?
Kendrick Lamar or A$AP Rocky. One of the two
Taylor Swift – she’ll be on tour in the U.K. in Trinity
Kamala Harris
What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?
Something on gender self-identification in the Olympics, because we have this summer 2024 Olympics coming. And I also think something on Taiwan would be really very relevant because a lot of people are wondering how far the West is going to be willing to go to defend Taiwan.
How are you feeling about the election?
Have you ever been in a locker room before the game? It’s very much that kind of energy. Everyone’s getting really really excited.
Anything else to add?
Can I give you my slogan? Challenge ideas, challenge speakers, challenge the status quo.
Leo Buckley
Briefly introduce yourself. Who are you? Which college are you at and what do you study?
I’m Leo Buckley, Trinity College, third-year history.
Why are you running for president?
I think I’m the best person for the job. I love the Union. It’s where I spend far too much of my time. I’ve been part of it for seven terms. I’ve been on committee for four terms. I’ve been on the governing body for two terms. I know the best parts about it. And I know the areas that I think it could improve. And I think I’m well placed to do that.
If you could highlight two points in your manifesto, what would they be?
I think that the professional experience that I have is really worth highlighting. I’ve scrutinised multi-million-pound budgets before as a member of the governing body of my sixth form. I’ve also worked as a documentary producer and director of a consultancy, which gives me a lot of experience outside of purely the Union committee meetings. I think that professional experience is pretty unique and I think that’s definitely worth highlighting. It gives me a way of understanding how finances work that you wouldn’t necessarily get if you came into the Union straight out of high school or only served on a couple of committees.
The second part I’d highlight are the pledges. The President is in a pretty unique position where they are the only person that can make very senior-level decisions and that’s why rather than pledging a debate, or a particular event, I’ve focused my pledges on changes only presidents can make. For example, opening on Sundays or opening until 2 am, which we have a licence to do, are senior decisions that only the President has the ability to do.
What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?
The Union has faced a couple of problems in terms of governance and finances. I think we are well on the way to fixing those with a governance review process, finding more trustees and raising money to fix the roof which we are well on the way to do. As President, I would continue to be a steady hand on the tiller for both of these processes.
I think there’s also a slight image from the Union where people see it as just a place where you go to see interesting or controversial speakers, and that’s why a lot of my manifesto is focused around highlighting the social aspects of the Union as a place to study or as a place to see friends and drink late into the night.
Why do you think the Union has been having uncompetitive elections for two terms in a row?
Well, I think there are a lot of reasons – sometimes it can be because candidates are very competent and very good. A couple of decades ago, there was a nearly ten-year-long period where there were uncontested elections term after term after term, which was widely considered a pretty bad time in the Union’s governance.
I think that sometimes as well, people can consolidate behind a candidate that gets a lot of momentum and then people don’t necessarily feel like they can engage against that sort of monolith. Ultimately, it’s a sensitive matter as well; I don’t think a prospective presidential candidate is the right person to give you the right answer.
Is there a reason that you’re running independently? Do you think that puts you at a disadvantage electorally?
Of course, I mean, the Secretary from St Anne’s College has got a really impressive team. She has Chris Collins, the top elected member of the standing committee who is also our RO, as her secretary. He’s an incredible figure. She’s got a terrific team of some really compelling standing candidates, like Robert McGlone and her seccies. So of course, I’m up against that.
But at the same time, I think that people respond well to choice and democracy, if you remember last term over a third of votes were for reopening nominations, which I think speaks to a discontent of not being able to have a choice. The electorate doesn’t like that. Plus I’m a pretty well-liked candidate electorally, I’ve got quite a reputation for running independently. I’ve done very well for that being one of the top elected seccies and standing members.
I think that for a long time, the Union didn’t have slates, and I probably think the Union shouldn’t have slates. And so you can say disadvantage, you can say, underdog. That’s my preferred way of phrasing it, everyone loves an underdog.
Julia said that she’s the only presidential candidate to fulfil any pledges over this term. What do you make of that claim?
I believe it to be false. In fact, I believe quite a few of her unscrutinised pledges might be false, but that’s for the RO’s to decide and not me. I believe myself to have fulfilled pledges in the past, which would render that statement false.
If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?
Martin Scorsese
Tony Blair
Jeremy Irons
What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?
Easy question. Brexit. Was Brexit a good idea, was it not? I think specifically it would be: “This house regrets leaving the European Union.” See my lock screen is the EU flag, if that gives you any indication of where I’d be on that one.
Anything else you’d like to say?
In my manifesto, I say that elections are about choice. I don’t think democracy can properly function at work without people having a real choice. So all I can say is that I hope that people come out to vote on Friday. Doesn’t matter who you vote for. But please engage. The Union can have some rough spots, but also, it can be one of the most amazing and impressive places. It’s 200 years old and it’s brought me such joy. I think people should contribute in the way that they can on Friday and play a part in that history. Vote Buckley.
Voting will happen tomorrow, on the 24 November, from 9:30 to 20:30.
Kenneth Branagh has taken on a new project: directing and starring in the Shakespearean classic ‘King Lear’ this winter at the Wyndham Theatre in London. Having found out about this play earlier this year – and then proceeding to make my father sit patiently on the website on ticket release day to snap us a front row seat to the action, with a fervour only comparable to trying to book taylor swift tickets (been there, done that…) – my anticipation and excitement for this play has been slowly building over the past few months. It’s safe to say I was not disappointed, from the set design to the acting and direction choices, everything was perfectly pieced together to create a stunning piece of traditional Shakespearean theatre with a twist.
What immediately struck me about this play was Jon Bausor’s set design. Basour has never failed to impress: his set designs frequently adorn London theatres and opera houses, even the opening ceremony of the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, and now many are on exhibition in the V&A museum – he is undeniably a master in his field. For King Lear he employed a concave ceiling with a gaping hole in the middle as a space to project the turbulent weather scenes, a rotating floor with a rising ramp from the centre, and several giant moving stones that were also used as screens for projections at particular moments of the play (imagine Stonehenge built to fit a proscenium arch and you have it!). It was a dynamic and expansive set which allowed for added intensity in its suffocating enclosure-style scope, wrapping up the audience within it.
The storm scene allowed the set to really shine. The storm is a pivotal moment in a script full of pathetic fallacy, where we see Lear begin to truly decline having declared his intent to go mad as a punishment for his disobedient daughters in the preceding scene. That a separate role of projection designer was chosen for this production demonstrates the level of importance the projections were given by Branagh as director. Nina Dunn’s projections of thunder clouds and murky shades of blue and grey splattered across the screen were enthralling. This and the accompanying soundscape made the entire experience feel real and immersive. The tech was incredible and well executed throughout. During the battle scenes – which contained some incredible examples of well-choreographed physical theatre – they had pre-filmed close ups of warriors’ faces and snapshots of fighting displayed across the back.
A moment of simple directorial genius came when following a grotesque form of torture – the moment at which Gloucester’s (played by Joseph Kloska) eyes are gouged out and the bloody remains flicked onto the floor – the theatre was bathed in a blackout, emulating the new experience of Gloucester’s blindness. It was maintained for a few minutes before the light slowly flooded back. There was an opportunity here for this effect to persist for too long, or equally not long enough, but Paul Keogan (Lighting Designer) managed to tread that fine line well.
The actors’ performances were all impeccable and, thanks to their astounding diction and projection, every single word was caught by the audience – a difficult task when speaking Shakespearean english. Kenneth Branagh, of course, was impeccable in his portrayal of Lear, maintaining a good mix of regal authority alongside soft intimacy as his mental state decays over the course of the play. His relationship with Jessica Revell as Cordelia was heartwrenching. Upon her death we see a tipping point being reached as Lear takes his own life whilst cradling his deceased daughter’s body, his hamartia – being his arrogance – being realised in an epiphany in the final moments and thus he ends his suffering in this tragic manner.
The fighting scenes were expertly choreographed, though I do think the use of slow motion and freeze frames in these scenes is slightly overdone and very typical of this style of physical theatre: these elements were hardly astounding. However, the acting was still exciting and kept me on my toes and watching with apprehension. The lighting and tech, red harsh lighting and battle sound effects, kept it feeling real and raw.
However, with a straight two hour run time, there is no place for pause or contemplation – and I can safely say the time flew by. The production could gain a lot from a 20-30 minute increase in running time, just enough to allow the audience to sink into the action and dialogue (of which the production offers plenty). Though the merit to this fast paced style did mean my attention was kept throughout such a dense play and my eyes were never drawn away from the stage.
Branagh brought emotional depth, rawness, and advanced modern lighting, set, and sound to this age old classic. And though perhaps not yet his major career defining triumph, it was undoubtedly one of the most immersive and interesting Shakespeare productions I have seen in a while.
King Lear will continue its run at the Wyndham Theatre, London until 9th December.
That Isaac Asimov’s retelling of a bemused reader’s response to Hamlet – ‘I don’t see why people admire that play so. It is nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together’ – has itself become a well-worn anecdote is only a testament to the challenges faced by those daring to stage the play today: acknowledging Hamlet’s canonical status has become clichéd, it is already canon. What can a new production do now when confronted with all that has already been done? There’s only so many different ways you can inflect ‘To be or not to be’. The play itself is haunted by Old Hamlet’s ghost, and today the play’s past versions haunt all those who dare to take it on.
Carys Howell seems to recognise this in her Hamlet, which played at the Keble O’Reilly. In Act 2 Scene 2, she has Claudius, bored and hungover, flick through a programme while Polonius pontificates in front of him. The programme used turns out to be for The Motive and the Cue, Jack Thorne’s new play about John Gielgud’s 1964 production of, you guessed it, Hamlet. Recognising a difficulty, though, is not the same as overcoming it.
This production’s new, present-day, concept was advertised quite explicitly. The marketing team of Nicole Gibbons and Evie Holloway promised a ‘press angle’, as Howell described it in a Cherwell interview. Professedly inspired by recent media coverage of the Royal Family, this production promised to explore the impact of newly emerging forms of media, both social and otherwise on public life. Occasionally, we see Howell’s production live up to this. Between some scenes we hear talk radio-style discussions of Elsinore’s ongoings. In a tone more combative than anything we could hope for from the British media, these additions bring the political infighting of the Danish court into the present day. The new media angle also feels meaningful in Hamlet’s mockery of Polonius. Scrolling on his phone, Josh Sneddon claims to read ‘words, words, words’ and, later, ‘slanders’ from ‘satirical rogues’.
Apart from this, though, the references to new media are quite rare, and feel tacked on. Entering the theatre, we see two actors lying on stage engrossed in their phones, but nothing comes of this. Occasionally, a stage manager comes onstage with a video camera, but the actors never give it any attention, nor does it seem to lead anywhere. There is another problem, though, that first becomes noticeable with the entrance of the video camera. The direction too often follows Robert Icke’s direction in his 2017 version with Andrew Scott. Sneddon’s Hamlet hides behind a sofa in Act 1 Scene 3 just as Scott’s does, and this is not the only instance of copying. Like in Icke’s, the search for Polonius’s body is stylised with torchlight. This continues to the play’s end, when each of the dead characters in the play’s final scene stand up during Hamlet’s monologue and pass him to exit upstage, while Old Hamlet’s Ghost returns once more. The second biggest laugh of the night comes when Claudius mistakes Rosencrantz for Guildenstern and vice versa, only for Gertrude to correct him. This is a joke straight from Icke’s production. Influence is one thing (Howell cites the set design from Icke’s version in her Cherwell interview), but this much results in a production that just feels like a pale imitation.
As for the acting, the standout performer is Joe Bangbala as Old Hamlet’s Ghost and the First Player, who brings an intensity of presence and clarity of speech that sets him apart. Meg Bruton as Horatio brings an endearing quality that justifies Hamlet’s fondness of her, and Nic Rackow’s delivery of Claudius’ public pronouncements is assured. Josh Sneddon plays Hamlet well in parts. He has a habit of pausing in places that loses the meaning of the lines, so that, for example, ‘I do not know why/ Yet I live to say “This thing’s to do”’ turns ‘I do not know why yet I live’ and ‘This thing’s to do’ into separate impulses, with ‘to say’ stranded in between. Perhaps he wants to imply that Hamlet is coming up with his speech in real time, but this comes across as formulaic, especially when combined with his persistently ironic tone. He would do well to follow Hamlet’s own advice to the players: ‘Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue.’
It is also regrettable that Sneddon fluffs some of his lines. We lose even some lines that Asimov might claim as part of the string of famous quotations, ‘What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,/ That he should weep for her’ being one of the most noticeable. It is not an easy task to learn all the lines for the title character of Shakespeare’s longest play, especially when combined with the demands of a degree, but that is what Sneddon signed up for, and he falls short of it too often. That said, his performance grows stronger in later scenes, and he has a good rapport with the more minor characters, especially in scenes in prose.
As a whole, though, the production’s most successful moments are additions that don’t come from the text. When Claudius video calls his emissary, Voltimand, he tells him, deadpan, ‘I think you’re on mute’. All the major laughs come from these sorts of extras. Humour already in the script, like The Gravedigger’s claim that in England ‘the men are as mad as’ Hamlet, tends to fall flat. Similarly, the design team seems to be at odds with the text used. Old Hamlet’s Ghost is dressed well in a dark military suit, and yet he is still described as ‘in complete steel’. The fencing foils in the final scene both have obvious rubber tips on the end, despite Laertes admitting to using an ‘unbated’ sword. Howell is clearly not opposed to minor alterations to the text (she changes the word ‘hugger-mugger’ to ‘speedily’, presumably to make the dialogue easier to understand), so in this vein we ought to have consistent alteration carried throughout.
When Hamlet can finally tell us ‘Now I am alone’, his moment to speak uninterrupted with the audience is barged in on by a soundtrack that seems intended to convey intrigue. Yet, near the end of that same soliloquy, when some intrigue actually presents itself in his plans for the play within the play, the track cuts and Sneddon mutters ‘the plays the thing/ Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king’ as he rushes off stage with a blackout coming halfway through the line. This, to me, is symptomatic of the main problems with this production. In parts, the production is interestingly original, but, for the rest, we are left with a production that hasn’t spent enough time thinking about the play as a whole and its specific details. It is all just slightly ‘out of joint’.
I sit in my room on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, scrutinising my face on Zoom as I wait for Kacie to join the call. I have followed Kacie’s instagram for months. While I was studying Italian in Florence over the summer, my feed flooded with restaurant recommendations and ‘La Dolce Vita’ captioned videos. Kacie’s skits stood out to me the most. Her funny and relatable ‘culture shock’ series on TikTok are what brought her social media stardom, but she is adamant that navigating her new online presence was not effortless. “Nobody writes a guidebook of what to do when you go from having zero eyes on you to millions. It’s so beautiful in one way. I was suddenly connecting with people all over the world … but after the culture shock series, I was getting 50,000 followers overnight.” Hate comments were overwhelming. “I cried everyday for a week.”
Kacie was a stranger to social media stardom until moving to Italy in 2021. Having grown up in Michigan, she moved to New York City at age seventeen with the dream of dancing professionally. “The midwest is known for its innate kindness, in the sense that people are very humble. Then you get to New York and people are very blunt and direct.” I ask which region had more influence on her. Launched head-first into a new pace of life, Kacie thrived off NYC’s multicultural bustle. Her adventurous online presence comes from a decade of building a career for herself in one of the world’s most frenetic cities. “New York is a city where anything can happen, and it’s beautiful in that way. You go from zero to a hundred very quickly.” This intensity, however, coupled with the toxicity of the performing arts industry, pushed Kacie to the edge. Marketability can compromise creative expression. As Kacie says, “an industry run by those with numbers in mind.” Enveloped in dance and five other jobs to support herself, Kacie was burnt out: “I’d grown to hate the industry so much that I was starting to lose my love of dance.”
COVID-19 was the silver lining. With theatres shut down and audition rooms empty, it was a time of re-evaluation. Having met her boyfriend Dario whilst travelling in Italy, moving to another country was on the cards. She is passionate about taking on challenges and taking yourself outside your comfort zone. “I believe in myself that I can do hard things. Life is too short not to do scary shit.” It was within her first week of living in Italy that Kacie picked up TikTok. What started as a fun pastime in mandatory quarantine grew overnight into an influential platform, sharing cultural differences and travel tips. Yet online hate is inevitable. Many comments attacked Kacie’s intelligence because she was American. “I made a promise to myself early on that I didn’t want to curate anything. I gradually realised that I was never going to please everybody.”
Kacie describes moving abroad as learning how to ‘do’ life all over again. Simple things that you wouldn’t think twice about doing in your own country, suddenly become overly complicated. “I didn’t know how to schedule a doctor’s appointment or where to buy a birthday card.” Transparent with these struggles on social media, Kacie makes them opportunities for humour. Living abroad is not all excitement and novelty. Homesickness often comes with a good dose of guilt. There looms an expectation that one should always be ‘grateful’, Kacie tells me, which is unrealistic.
‘Do the shit that scares you’ is now the catchphrase of Kacie’s travel business, Kacie Rose Travel. A far cry from the Broadway stage, Kacie now hosts group trips, taking people from all over the world through various regions of Italy. I ask which trip has been the most memorable. “My first ever group trip. I was so nervous, I felt so much anxiety. I thought it was a mistake. They knew it was my first group trip and they embraced it, they ran with problems and they were so kind and supportive. At the end of that week everyone was standing in the hotel lobby crying whilst saying goodbye to each other. I was shown such beautiful support by people I didn’t know a week beforehand.”
I was interested to ask Kacie how she feels her brand combats negative stereotypes of Americans being insular and untravelled. “If you live in the middle of America, to get to the East coast it can cost $400. Let alone travelling overseas. Most Europeans don’t understand what life is like for the average American. What I aim to do is open up those doors and share another perspective. Understanding and appreciating those of other cultures is the number one tool we have to respect.”
Kacie’s career versatility is a perfect example of embracing the unexpected. I ask her for any advice she may have for students wanting to expand their circles and discover life in other countries. She says that we shouldn’t become wrapped up in one sole ‘purpose’. The world is too wide to settle in one place with the same job your whole life. “You’re allowed to have other hobbies and interests. It’s ok to pursue multiple things. As humans, we all want the same things, we just achieve them in different ways. And you will never understand that until you travel.”
Kacie Rose is online on Tiktok at kacierose4, and on Instagram at @kacierose_. To find out more about Kacie Rose, visit her website.
In an interview with Kate Raworth, author of Doughnut Economics, Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell critiqued their guest’s rejection of economic growth. While Raworth maintains that a new model is necessary to build a sustainable eco-economic system, Stewart and Campbell argue that the idea is simply politically infeasible. Both views are right. A model along the lines of the sustainable ‘doughnut’ that Raworth advocates is necessary if we are to avert the horrifying culmination of our 200+ year industrial experiment, yet is also impossible to implement in our current political system. A candidate or party advocating for such solutions simply opens themselves up to electoral annihilation.
Is replacement of our current political and economic model really necessary? Surely substantial progress has already been made? Case in point, the Inflation Reduction Act. Passed by the Biden administration, it was a landmark piece of legislation that transformed the American response to the climate crisis and provided a beacon of climate leadership for countries all over the world. China, the world’s largest carbon emitter, has made pledges for reducing their emissions and is rapidly investing in renewables. Yet while major countries continue to talk about slashing their emissions, and endless COPs promise the final turning point for climate action, global emissions continue to rise and rise.
But even the current terrifyingly threadbare climate action may not last. The impassioned prayers of climate scientists were delivered with Biden’s victory in the 2020 US election on promises of substantial climate legislation. But with Biden’s popularity flailing, and deepening polarisation meaning that the Republicans are intransigent in their denial of climate change while the world burns, any GOP victory will lead the world’s largest democracy in a fossil fuel boom that will guarantee that any chance the human race has to avoid the worst is snuffed out. In Britain, the ruling Conservative Party, for example, set out the goal of net zero by 2050, including a provision for no new petrol or diesel cars to be sold by 2030, yet already the influence of pressure groups and right-wing outriders occupying the climate sceptic policy space have led the Conservatives to weaken their goals. Across Europe, right-wing parties are leading a backlash to green policies that threatens to undermine EU emissions targets.
Therefore, consider this thesis: the Western economic and political system is patently unable to accommodate the complete transformation that adapting to climate change would require, having developed through the industrial revolution and the use of fossil fuels. The consumption of fossil fuels, which is destroying the environment, is also baked into national and global systems of governance. Campbell and Stewart both made this connection, the former referencing a ‘gulf’ between what needs to happen and ‘the political realities in democracies’. An increasingly apparent pattern is that the necessarily radical climate policies prove politically unpalatable, or that their cost is exploited by ideologues and cynical opportunists alike for electoral gain. Infrastructure projects like implementing renewable energy generation are hugely expensive and are scrapped or shrunk by recession-hit treasuries. Attempts to curb individual emissions like 15-minute cities are portrayed as attacks on individual liberties (obscuring real problems to be solved like their effect on low-income families). Degrowth and similar ideas are seen as simply further impoverishing already impoverished working people, and thus lie beyond the political pale. These are all changes that we need if we are to stand a chance against climate breakdown, yet are all changes that are unthinkable.
Of course, Western democracies are not the world. But the West clearly has an urgent duty to reduce emissions, due to having both some of the world’s highest per-capita emissions and because of the historical contribution to climate change. Cynical electioneering may lead liberal democracies to abandon their efforts to tackle climate change, a death sentence for any hope of meaningful and direly needed global action. The complex systems sustaining human civilisation cannot withstand the radical transformation that climate change will bring (see the paper by Steffen, Will et al. ‘Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 115.33 [2018],which explains the multiplicity of earth-systemic tipping points that, once reached, further accelerate climate breakdown in a feedback loop).The current equilibrium of the Earth system is at breaking point and yet global political leaders delay, ignore and frustrate the action that is necessary. We need political actors to overturn the same system that has installed them in the first place.
I would strenuously clarify that I do not have a vision of an alternative political system, and I certainly do not believe in an ‘eco-dictatorship’. I strongly and passionately believe in my country’s system of liberal democracy yet it may be totally unsuited to our era of entirely unprecedented and existential crisis. The truth is that I don’t know the answer. I can offer a diagnosis but I am at a loss for a treatment. The only rational response to this two-headed paradox may be doomerism, an acceptance of the inevitable entailing giving up any attempt to stop runaway climate change. But this, too, is surely the wrong answer. It is our duty to not only the rest of humanity, but our descendants, and our forebears, to do everything in our power to preserve the Earth system that has fostered our species. If there is even the smallest, barest chance that we might yet save these things, then we must try.
Many claim that the age of the movie star is dead, but Tom Hanks can definitely give them a run for their money. Recognised globally, with 43 years in the film industry and countless accolades behind him, Hanks has cemented himself as one of cinema’s golden boys.
On December 1st, the Oxford Union will host this titan of acting for the first time to deliver a speech to students, with his arrival guaranteeing queues unravelling from St. Michael’s Street and a strong media presence.
And rightly so! At a time of heightened scepticism towards the cult of celebrity and the disproportionate presence of ‘Nepo babies’ on screen and stage, it is refreshing to be reminded that there are still those who have reached the peak of fame through pure dedication to their craft. So whether you know him best as Forrest Gump, crying out “Wilson!”, or simply as the voice of a toy cowboy, Hanks’ undeniable talent deserves a deeper look.
Hanks began his movie career acting a small role in the low-budget 1980 slasher, He Knows You’re Alone. Even with Hanks’ blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance as Elliot the student, he ostensibly impressed filmmakers so much that they decided to cut out his death scene which was originally in the script.
It wouldn’t be long until he earnt lead roles, such as the ABC television series Bosom Buddies, running between 1980 to 1982. Hanks, alongside Peter Scolari, starred as two advertising men disguised as women living in a dirt-cheap, female-only apartment. Playing on gender stereotypes that usually involved Hanks, the show became known for its use of improvisation. “I knew he’d be a movie star in two years”, said co-producer Ian Praiser about him. Bosom Buddies held solid reviews until its cancellation and became the foothold for Hanks to launch a successful stint of comedic performances.
Take his first lead role in Splash, a surprise box office hit which earnt $69 million in 1984. It was a fantasy rom-com where Hanks’ character falls in love with a mermaid.This was immediately followed by the sex comedy film Bachelor’s Party where Hanks’ character embarks on a quest to remain faithful during an epic bachelor party.
The highlight of Hanks’ early career in comedy was no doubt the 1988 fantasy comedy Big, which earnt him his first Academy Award nomination and a Golden Globe win for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy. Grossing over $150 million worldwide and earning critical acclaim for his lead performance, Big cemented Hanks as a Hollywood star.
It wasn’t until 1992 that Hanks experienced his next big hit in A League of Their Own. A sports comedy-drama based on the real-life All American Girls Professional Baseball League. The film grossed over $130 million and proved a critical success, with Hanks at the lead once again. In 2012, the Library of Congress agreed to preserve it in the United States National Film Registry for its cultural significance.
1993 was another pivotal year for Hanks’ career seeing the release of the rom com classic Sleepless in Seattle, which remains widely touted by critics as one of the greatest of all time.
His role in Philadelphia earnt him an Oscar, where Hanks plays a gay lawyer with AIDS who sues his former employer for wrongful termination. Philadelphia is significant, not only for addressing HIV and AIDS, but for portraying gay people in a positive light which wasn’t common at the time. Hanks has commented that the movie would be difficult to make today. He questioned if audiences would “accept the inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy”.
Forrest Gump, is a name synonymous with Tom Hanks, a role he truly made his own. Personally, it was my first memory of him on screen and one that has always stuck in mind. The role made him only the second man, after Spencer Tracy, to win back-to-back Oscars for Best Actor. Grossing over $600 million and solidifying him as a household name, the movie also graced popular culture with “run Forrest, run” and “life is like a box of chocolates”. The film follows the life of slow-witted Alabama man Forrest Gump. It recounts his journey unwittingly bumping into key historical figures and events including Elivis Presley, JFK, the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson, the March on the Pentagon, John Lennon, and Richard Nixon.
Hanks’ next role after his string of successes was as astronaut Jim Lovell in 1995’s docudrama Apollo 13. It depicts NASA’s aborted third attempt to land on the moon and the improvisation and brains behind bringing them back to Earth safely. This was another smash hit to put under Hanks’ belt, grossing over $350 million. Hanks had been hoping to do a film on the Apollo 13 mission and was ultimately cast due to his knowledge of Apollo and space history. He even had to attend U.S. Space Camp to prepare for the role.
Voice acting was the next fortuitous step Hanks took in his career. He took a chance on the first ever computer-animated comedy film by the small Pixar Animation Studios. In a world where toys come to life when no one is looking, Hanks filled the snake-housing boots of Sheriff Woody. The Toy Story franchise would go on to have three sequels and a prequel, grossing $3.3 billion worldwide. Again, Hanks’ performance provided notable moments that would last as memories in the collective consciousness of viewers, such as his rendition of You’ve Got a Friend in Me, or yelling into the face of an unconvinced Buzz Lightyear, “you are a toy!”
Maintaining his newfound dynamicism, Hanks ventured into his writing and directing debut on That Thing You Do! In 1996. The comedy told the tale of a fictional 1960s one hit wonder band, Hanks starring as the band’s manager. Although critically acclaimed to this day, That Thing You Do! has not held up to be as culturally significant as Hanks’ other works. Hanks would go on to found a Playtone, a record and film production company, named after the record company in the film. Another writing and directing project he undertook played on his passion for space, just as in Apollo 13. The HBO docudrama From the Earth to the Moon chronicled the space program and particular hot points such as the moon landings. The show would go on to bring home multiple Emmys, including one in Hanks’ name for Outstanding Miniseries.
The next step for Hanks was teaming up with Steven Spielberg for the war epic Saving Private Ryan. Portraying a US army captain suffering from PTSD through the landing of Omaha Beach to the rescue of Matt Damon’s Private Ryan picked him up yet another Best Actor nomination at the Oscars. Widely considered one of, if not the, best war movies ever made, Hanks certainly put his stamp on the genre. Most memorable was his desperate taking on of a Tiger I tank with a mere pistol, and coming out alive.
Hanks would continue adding to his successful career in acting with roles in the adaptation of Stephen King’s The Green Mile, alongside Leonardo DiCaprio in Spielberg’s Catch Me if You Can, and the Coen brothers’ The Ladykillers. He maintained his impressive knack at collecting prestigious awards and recognition. He earned another Oscar nomination for Best Actor for playing a marooned FedEx employee who bonds with a Wilson volleyball in 2000’s Cast Away. He took home Emmys for direction and production work on the HBO television series Band of Brothers.
In the last ten years Hanks has kept his career in the spotlight, receiving critical acclaim for portraying a captain taken hostage and Walt Disney in 2013’s Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks. He became the first actor to portray Disney in a mainstream film. He made the move to Broadway with his debut coming through Lucky Guy. His portrayal of journalist Mike McAlary earned him a Tony Award nomination for Best Actor in a Play. All the more culturally significant was his appearance on the music video for Carly Rae Jepson’s I Really Like You, where he appears lip-syncing all the lyrics to the song. The video sits on 300 million views as of time of writing.
Hanks would go on to earn his final Oscar nomination for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood for Best Supporting Actor, becoming the TV presenter Fred Rogers in his biopic. His latest pictures saw him portray Tom Parker, the manager of Elvis Presley in Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis and a disaffectionate father-in-law in Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City.
Hanks now has a trophy cabinet of two Oscars and twelve Emmys. In 2002 he was awarded the AFI Lifetime Achievement Award and in 2016 he picked up both the US Presidential Medal of Freedom and the French Legion of Honour at the rank of Knight. Worldwide, his films have grossed nearly $10 billion and he regularly tops the lists compiling the best actors and most influential celebrities of all time. Who knows what he’ll make of little Oxford?
We’re now in the middle of the Michaelmas term. The first term always feels like the longest because there are no bank holidays or breaks in between. It is at this time that, with all the distractions of freshers’ week gone, feelings of homesickness often emerge.
One of the most crushing things about homesickness is the stigma attached to it. We feel it is a ‘non-emotion’, or a childish set of feelings. This is not true. It is a real thing. For many, coming to university is a big change from the way they were used to living, and soit can create a crisis of identity. The tug-of-war between the life we had and the life we now have generates overwhelming feelings. Homesickness is the ache from an old wound. It takes time to get used to.
Living in the care system, where moving home and sometimes even country, homesickness had become a fact of my life. These are a few tips I’ve picked up along the way on how to deal with it.
1. Don’t crawl the walls.
When a bout of homesickness creeps up on you, the temptation to isolate yourself can be crippling. Changing the scenery can transform your feelings. Encourage yourself to have regular but small positive social interactions. At sixteen, I moved from a children’s home on the Isle of Man to a ‘supported lodgings’ (a privately rented bedroom) in the UK. I was ripped away from my entire life and dropped into the middle of rural England. I found that going out to regular open-mic nights helped relieve the social isolation and meet new people.
Get outside. Force yourself to meet new people. Go to events. Embrace your new life.
2. Doom scrolling is not a comfort blanket.
It’s easy to spiral into a doom-scrolling loop to deal with the overwhelming feelings. In fact, it’s just an avoidance tactic or coping mechanism which achieves the exact opposite. If you find yourself endlessly scrolling through apps, put your phone down, and check in with yourself and see what it is you’re feeling.
. Real life is not online. Put your phone down. Give yourself space. Follow point 1.
3. Listen to music that makes you feel happy.
The great thing about music is that it creates the soundtrack to our lives. It’s a potent tool in shaping our emotions and memories. At any point I feel vulnerable, I stick on a favourite album and go for a walk. I find this a compelling way to work through what I’m feeling and help me think more clearly. Research has also shown that listening to music you like releases dopamine (the feel-good chemical) into the brain.
Create a playlist. Plug your earphones in. Tune into the good emotions. Drop the homesickness out.
4. Don’t suffer in silence.
One of the most striking things I’ve found when moving to a new place is that everyone understands what it is like. And everyone seems to have advice on how to deal with it. At Oxford, I guarantee you are not the only one dealing with homesickness. Sometimes, talking through your feelings or sharing anecdotes from home can help reduce the homesickness. This will also help in forging new relationships in the new life you now have.
You’re not the only one. Share your experience. Surprise yourself.
Homesickness affects everyone at some point in different ways. Through sharing, we can normalise these feelings and avoid the isolation that comes with them.
The recent protest outside the Radcliffe Camera is just one in a series of demonstrations staged by Just Stop Oil to draw attention to increasing global temperatures and the catastrophic effects of climate change. As well as painting the Radcliffe camera orange, previous protests have included shutting down the M25, interrupting play at Wimbledon and throwing soup at van Gogh’s Sunflowers at the National Gallery – to name only a few. As temperatures continue to rise whereas governments continue to delay climate action, we are once again compelled to question whether Just Stop Oil’s actions are proactive, or simply disrespectful towards the general public?
It is widely agreed that the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, with global surface temperatures having increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50 year period over the last 2000 years (UN). The IPCC states that there is ‘unequivocal’ evidence that humans are the cause behind this warming and that only immediate action can secure a liveable future. The UK government, on the other hand, announced recently that it would be awarding 27 new oil and gas exploration licences in the North Sea in an attempt to ensure the UK’s energy security and reduce our need for imported energy. Even in light of this political climate, the actions of climate activists, such as those involved in JSO, remain highly controversial amongst both Oxford University students and the wider public.
One particular reason for this contrast is suggested by survey respondent Louisa Parks, associate professor of sociology at the University of Trento, Italy- who outlined how disruptive protests are prone to causing immediate public and political backlash but generally have a more positive impact in the long-term, stating that ‘broader cultural changes could be provoked despite short-term backfire effects’. This links to the idea of the so-called ‘radical flank’ effect within a social movement – when radical tactics are seen to increase support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Indeed, it could be argued that despite the initial public outrage following the vandalisation of the Radcliffe Camera, it has sparked more widespread debate surrounding Oxford University’s own climate policies – including its connections with recruitment into fossil fuel companies.
This is in no way a new concept- even after the extremely controversial ‘Insulate Britain’ campaign in 2021, mentions of housing insulation in the British press more than doubled. There are now calls for a ‘wartime effort’ on insulation coming from a cross-parliamentary committee.
Despite this, much of the student body remains unconvinced following JSO’s vandalism of the Radcliffe Camera, with one student from Jesus College stating that this type of protest risks ‘turning the public against a valid cause’. Part of the issue encountered by JSO activists in gaining widespread support is that many think that their demonstrations target hardworking, innocent people. Moreover, some may argue that targeting socially and culturally significant buildings such as the Radcliffe Camera or artwork such as van Gogh’s Sunflowers could be considered deeply inappropriate and immoral.
However, whilst such acts of vandalism may seem completely outrageous and disproportionate, one must consider the cause of these protests and the extent of the climate breakdown that we may soon be facing. An important distinction to bear in mind, especially when considering the current actions of the UK government and the proposed construction of new oil fields such as Rosebank, is that the extent of the global temperature increase relies not on how fast we are able to reach net zero but upon exactly how much greenhouse gas we have emitted into the atmosphere within this timescale. The severity of the issue is best understood when one considers the analysis conducted by the Global Carbon Project, who highlight how, if we are to have even a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, our remaining carbon budget (the amount of carbon we can release into the atmosphere) is equivalent to only 380 Gigatonnes of CO2. This may seem like a large amount, but is in fact only equivalent to nine more years of emission at 2022 levels before we have less than a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5° C target set by the Paris Agreement.
These statistics are striking and provide only limited insight into the current state of the global climate system. If, as is looking increasingly likely, we overshoot this target, the situation is likely to look far worse – a warming of 4°C above pre industrial levels could result in unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in a number of regions. This would have considerable impacts on human systems and ecosystems, and likely result in a considerable loss of life.
Therefore, when one considers the possible devastating impacts of such extreme climate change, acts of protest such as vandalising the Radcliffe Camera suddenly seem infinitely less problematic. One might even argue that such acts of protest are not only justified, but absolutely necessary in order to reflect the current gravity of the climate emergency. Even though their tactics are often initially frowned upon by the general public, I argue that the acts of groups such as JSO seem to play a unique part in motivating governments, universities and corporations to take real climate action.
