Tuesday 22nd July 2025
Blog Page 126

Forget Her Not: Rediscovering Women in Music- Week 1

0

At fifteen, I was fully and completely obsessed with the Californian soul/alternative R&B/jazz/funk band The Internet. It is for this reason that I can (attempt to) claim to have known Steve Lacy before everyone else. But alas, he is now a huge music sensation (as he should be, to be fair. I could not gate keep him forever).

But Lacy is not the only great talent to come out of that band. The Internet’s lead vocalist and R&B, Soul and Hip Hop master Syd, AKA Syd tha Kid (short for Sydney Loren Bennett) first started making music at 15. She learnt how to record, engineer, and produce music from home, which also quickly became the hub for the hip hop collective Odd Future. In 2011, she started the band The Internet, who went on to produce four critically acclaimed albums. My personal favourite is groovy, avant-garde and grammy-winning Ego Death (best songs on there: Gabby (feat. Janelle Monáe), Penthouse Cloud, Just Sayin/I Tried, and criminally underrated Palace/Curse, featuring the one and only Tyler the Creator).

Since the band split up (following their fourth studio album, Hive Mind, in 2018) to focus on individual projects, Syd has produced two albums. The first, Fin, is a triumph of romance, soul and sensuality, combining stylistic syncopation with Syd’s trademark pensive, sultry lyricism. Got Her Own playfully subverts gender stereotyping, an ode to an independent, ambitious woman. Here, she characteristically directs lyrics of love and desire to a woman, as usual open, bold and honest in matters of sexuality – “I’m not going to sing about men when I don’t date men – and I’m also not not gonna sing about love” she told The Guardian in 2019, maintaining “I don’t feel like a part of the gay community… I’m the only person like me that I know”. 

Syd’s second album, Broken Hearts Club meditates upon infatuation and heartbreak, slipping between rapture, optimism and insecurity. She handles both sides with delicacy and warmth, yet her honesty still shines through, the opening track CYBAH a “quiet storm”, dreamlike, rhetorically questioning “could you break a heart?” By the end of the album, of course we have our sure answer: Missing Out confirms “it wasn’t always perfect/but now it’s nothing”. 

Syd’s voice spellbinds, her storytelling enchants and intrigues. Fingers crossed for another album soon!

#oxfess29033: Who runs Oxfess?!

0

Who runs Oxfess? That’s the simple question that no one in this university seems to have an answer to. Oxfess is the heart and soul of student communication at Oxford. It’s where we can be our truest, most unfiltered Oxselves. And yet, we have no idea who manages this platform at all. Who is the Rupert Murdoch that controls us all?

A quick search on the current Oxfess page shows that the first post was made on the 14th December, 2020. For an institution that feels so firmly embedded in everyday life at Oxford, this is surprisingly recent. In these three years, nearly 30,000 posts have been made. From Oxsh*gger to Oxsh*tter, relentless complaints about workload to desperate, grasping Oxloves – it is all present on the Oxfess hivemind. Anything and everything that an Oxford student can think of has been put out on Oxfess. 

That’s what really makes Oxfess so special to this university – it is incredibly accessible. The veil of anonymity exposes the deepest, most depraved desires of an Oxford student for all to see, our unchecked horniness and our unfettered groupthink. I would even go so far to say that it is the most authentic voice of Oxford students, more than any of the big, institutionalised student forums. The SU, any of the JCRs, even student newspapers – they can’t compete with how well Oxfess brings to the light our most unhinged selves.

Then, if it is so vital to student life, if it is Oxford’s bubbling subconscious, why do we know barely anything about how it’s run? All the other student platforms are largely democratic and transparent. The SU and the JCRs are elected, and their inner workings are (somewhat) open to scrutiny. Similarly, student newspapers are always open to complaints and suggestions, and their entire machinery is student-run. Even the Union, for all its vices, is of the students, by the students, for the students. 

But Oxfess remains a mystery. Certainly, it is meant for Oxford students. Is it of and by the students? Even I, a certified Oxfess Top Fan™, don’t know, and I’d bet most of you lot don’t either. If I could hazard a guess, it was probably set up by some enterprising student (Hamish Nash or Shu Huang?), and given that four years have passed, they’re probably not at Oxford anymore. Maybe they still manage it in their spare time elsewhere, or maybe they’ve handed it down to someone else who’s still at Oxford. Yet, it’s equally likely that it was set up by some shady Rupert Murdoch-esque opportunist that now controls their media empire with an iron fist. How dare we abide by such ignominy!

I’d like to clarify that I’m not encouraging or asking anyone to doxx or harass the Oxfess admins (please, I don’t want to be sued for libel). They clearly don’t want to make their identity public, and it’s completely fair to respect that. Oxfess is a Facebook page that they own, and it’s their choice how they want to manage it. None of us have a ‘right’ to it.

Nevertheless, I think it’s worth asking the student community how we think student communication should be managed. We strive to make our forums democratic and transparent because free and fair discussion is important to us. Then, do we want our favourite gossip page to remain in the grip of Big Brother?

The opacity of Oxfess makes the admin a virtual despot. Which posts will be approved and which ones won’t? They alone decide, and we cannot challenge them. Surely the OxDespot has biases, like all of us do – how are we certain that the posts we see don’t reflect them? When controversy breaks out, and they believe one side over the other, can we be sure they aren’t flooding Oxfess with only posts supporting their side? When transphobic, classist, racist, sexist posts are submitted, it’s their definition of what ‘crosses the line’ that decides which get approved. Big Oxfess has total control over the platform; they shape the content of our thoughts with their subliminal propaganda. 

In truth, Oxfess seems to be moderated reasonably well. I think the variety of posts are (more or less) unbiased and representative of us students; I know I’d much rather complain about my flatmates’ disgusting habits to strangers than talk the problem out. And when troublesome topics do come up, there’s usually a decent job done at handling them. But I don’t really know that for sure. And I have no assurances as to how long this quality of moderation can last. For the moment, we’re relying on the benevolence of an unknown Oxtyrant to get by; like Kim Jong-Un, their hand may drift over to the big red button anytime. I don’t think Oxford’s subconscious should be like that – no, we as students simply cannot abide such a thing. We have bent all the other student platforms to our will; now we must seize the means of communication!

But I’m not entitled to demand that Oxfess open itself up to scrutiny; none of us are. At the same time, we need to be aware that, as long as we continue to consume content on Oxfess, we will be subjected to the yoke of media tyranny. Only we can emancipate ourselves. 

The clearest solution is to return to democratic and transparent student forums – student newspapers and the like. Fat chance of that. Who’d be arrogant enough to imagine that a ghastly echo-chamber like Cherwell genuinely represents Oxford students? Oxfess has the anonymity and convenience that lets us be as deranged as we want. That isn’t unique to Oxfess, however – any anonymous confessions page can do that too. So maybe the answer is a competitor to Oxfess, one that’s of, by, and for the students. But problems here arise too. Oxfess simply has the first-mover advantage, the name recognition, the prestige that takes years to build; like Murdoch’s media monopoly, it is too big to fail. It is too entrenched to be seriously challenged, let alone displaced, by some new page. The only chance for such a thing to succeed would be for the SU to fund it, and that means SU oversight. Who wants them in charge of anything that’s actually important? At least our current despot has some sense of humour. I shudder to imagine a regime run by the SU – they’d probably ban Oxhates.

As far as solutions go, nothing seems immediately visible. Unless some new idea can come up that can displace Oxfess, we will continue to be mind-controlled by this murky despot, the Rupert Murdoch of Oxford. How long do we want to continue like this?

Grammys 2024: Reflection of Profitability or Recognition of Artistry?

0

The 2024 Grammys were everything they should be: glamorous, monumental, and of course, controversial.

Taylor Swift has made history by becoming the first artist to win Album of the Year four times, this year for her tenth studio album Midnights. She additionally took home the prize for Best Pop Vocal Album, her acceptance of which she took as an opportunity to announce her upcoming album – The Tortured Poets Department. In an attempt to recreate the mid-award show frenzy of the 2022 VMAs (when she announced Midnights), Swift further proved her love for dramatics, and shock-factor. Her wins may come as a surprise in such competitive categories, beating out the still Grammy-less Lana Del Ray; but what should not come as a surprise is that she is not coming down from her current state of success anytime soon.

Miley Cyrus took home Record of the Year, and Best Solo Pop Performance – for her astronomically popular Flowers, while Billie Eilish and Finneas O’Connell took home Best Song – for their Barbie Movie theme What Was I Made For? Completing the ‘big four’ was Victoria Monét, who bagged Best New Artist, alongside Best R&B Album for Jaguar II.

SZA, despite missing out on the ‘big four’, had a successful night: Snooze won Best R&B Song, and her collaboration with Phoebe Bridgers Ghost in the Machine won Best Pop Duo/Group Performance. Phoebe Bridgers, Lucy Dacus, and Julien Baker, or Boygenius as they are collectively known, swept the pre-show – winning Best Alternative Album for The Record, and Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance for their album’s lead single – Not Strong Enough. Paramore bagged Best Alternative Music Performance, and Best Rock Album for This is Why.

Tyla won Best African Music Performance for Water, and Kylie Minogue bagged Best Pop Dance Recording for Padam Padam. Best R&B Performance went to Coco Jones for ICU, and Best Rap Song was awarded to Killer Mike for Michael.

Jack Antonoff went for a personal hattrick, winning Producer of the Year (non-classical), for the third year in a row. He is working at an unprecedented pace and is solidifying himself as a tenet of the industry: producing both Lana Del Ray’s Did You Know That There’s a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd, and Taylor Swift’s Midnights. Speaking of these two artists, a cringeworthy – (or endearing) – moment arose when Taylor dragged Lana onto the stage when she went to accept the award for Album of the Year (despite the fact Lana Del Ray lost to Swift): she proceeded to call Lana Del Ray a ‘trailblazer’, and ‘legacy artist’, praising her for the impact she has had on Taylor personally and on the music industry. Fans across the internet are furiously disappointed by Del Ray’s not picking up an award – for any of her seven nominations. As one of the few artists who has a cult following similar to that of Taylor Swift, the persistent lack of recognition that Del Ray has faced raises questions concerning the Grammys’ position in working to support the commercialisation of music.

Taylor Swift is a publicity machine, becoming a billionaire during her immensely successful Eras Tour, and so her wins do not come as a surprise considering her popularity and marketability. Fairness and awards for creative arts are intrinsically antithetical; yet the role a Grammy plays in solidifying a musician’s career is undeniable. Even if the academy considered Midnights as warranting recognition over Lana Del Rey’s album, does the work of Lana Del Rey as a ‘trailblazer’ (in her opponent’s words no less), not deserve to culminate in a Grammy? I use the word ‘opponent’ ironically, as this kind of debate is a symptom of the way ‘stan culture’, strengthened through social media, has exacerbated the pre-existing narrative of female artists as enemies.

The 2024 Grammys were an excellent year for women – especially queer women. Phoebe Bridgers, when interviewed backstage with her bandmates Lucy Dacus and Julien Baker, celebrated this success: in response to the former Grammys CEO Neil Portnow telling reporters in 2018 that women needed ‘to step up’ to win more Grammys, Bridgers said when he dies, to ‘rot in piss’.  Baker chimed in calling her ‘pretty rock-and-roll’ – a fitting description considering the band’s sweeping success that night of the rock category.

This ceremony saw artists of colour, queer artists, and female artists come to the forefront, recognising the fundamental importance and power that these individuals have in the music industry. It felt unpredictable and dynamic, providing satisfaction and disappointment, and begged questions about the music industry going forward: do the Grammys merely reflect what is popular and profitable, or does it recognise artistry and originality? It seems it does both simultaneously.

“Riotously Funny and Highly Enjoyable”: Blackadder Review

0

I can confess that when I first heard Blackadder was being performed as a play at the Pilch, my immediate reaction was scepticism. How, I wondered, were they going to be able to condense four seasons of comedy television into a single evening? Not to mention that these four seasons themselves covered four separate and distinct historical eras, providing a veritable nightmare for stage design in the close confines of the Pilch. The biggest catch, of course, is that the original television Blackadder remains hilariously funny due to a series of excellent comic performances, which it would require a skilled cast of actors to replicate. It seemed a highly ambitious project, potentially exceeding the capabilities of university theatre.

It came as a pleasant surprise, therefore, that I found the production riotously funny and highly enjoyable. The secret to its success was a degree of prudent reserve. Rather than attempting, and inevitably failing, to cover the entirety of all of the series, Blackadder wisely limited itself to the plots of a single episode from each of the final three seasons. The decision to leave out the medieval section, which differs significantly in style from its successors, also seemed like a smart decision. The formidable challenge of set design was solved skillfully with a stripped-back set consisting only of the basic furniture required for the action, plain as to not decidedly be from any period, and augmented with small props to convey the particularities of each scene. These various clever solutions provided a solid backdrop on which the action could properly take place, and it did so splendidly.

The imposing final task, of being sufficiently funny, was met by a brilliant cast of actors, who proceeded to go above and beyond my expectations. Particular favourites were Leah Aspell as a consistently hilarious Baldrick, and Lucas Angell who stole the show as both Prince George and Lady Whiteadder. But Blackadder, is, as the name suggests, a show very much dominated by its lead character – and I could hardly have laughed harder at Susie Wridmann’s excellent performance, carrying all the cynical ‘cunning’ of Rowan Atkinson and giving it her own sharp twist to boot. These were just a few of the many fantastic performances which made this show one of the highlights of my week. There were, on occasion, slips – such as the sniggers from the cast at the sight of Tom Pavey as Melchett wearing fake eyebrows and a moustache – but these were expertly rescued by a moment of apparent improvisation from Alex Still as Captain Darling. After all, Blackadder  is meant to be a comedy, and this only made it funnier.


I approached Blackadder with apprehension,. but I was wrong to. The cast delivered a pacy and sparking performance which had my chest aching with laughter by the end, and seemed to make the hour and a half it lasted fly by in no time at all. But, whilst the actors were impressive in their own right, they relied on a foundation of solid lighting and music, and particularly intuitive stage design. This was all completed, of course, by witty writing and undoubtedly skilled direction. Overall, it was certainly a very cleverly-composed play, and had cast my doubts aside within the first few minutes of performance. Most importantly, I had a great time.

Portrait Spotlight: Sir Claus Adolf Moser (1984-5)

0

With each new warden elected at Wadham, a new portrait is commissioned for the walls of the dining hall. Most commonly we think of these portraits as highly stylized and antique, with an embedded sense of austerity. When Sir Claus Adolf Moser was appointed warden in 1984, he commissioned Tom Phillips to paint his portrait for him. Moser, like all other newly appointed wardens, had full patronage and control over his college portrait allowing him to portray elements of his personality within the piece. However, he decided to change the way we look at collegiate Warden portraits forever.

Situated at the very back of Wadham’s dining hall stands the portrait of Moser musing in a night-time forest of beech trees; their branches and twigs break up the glow of the moonlit sky behind them and a gradient of fog lay beneath them. Moser sits in the foreground of the image staring wryly at the viewer. Roland Barthes would call his hands the punctum of the image,1 because our eyes are immediately drawn to them. The hands appear more washed out than the rest of the painting, as the edges of the lines blur into his body behind him and the blue and purple shadows contrast the back of his hands where the moonlight hits. Our eyes then skim up to the face of the man and then to the fragments of the night sky that reside behind him.

I believe the blurring of the hands in this portrait is a deliberate technical element used symbolically by Phillips to reference Moser’s love for music and skill as a pianist, a unique attention to detail seldom found in portraits commissioned by academic institutions. Moser fled with his family to Britain in 1936 to avoid Nazi persecution. At school, he was recognised for his musical abilities and learned how to play the piano. In 1940, he was awarded a place at the London School of Economics (LSE) where he continued to play the instrument and perform in university concerts. Later on, after the end of his wardenship, Moser was invited by a group of students back to Wadham to play a Mozart concerto with some musicians from Tokyo–a testament to his legacy and musical talents.

Another aspect of this portrait which reveals Moser’s personal character is seen in the background. We see two figures, both wearing regency wigs and vestments as they trail behind one another in the fog. These figures represent the Countess and Figaro in an attempt to convey the last scene from ‘The Marriage of Figaro,’ Moser’s favourite Opera. The fog almost appears to spotlight his figure as if he himself is an actor on stage. This is likely a reference to his active role as a member of the board at the Royal Opera House from 1964, for which he became chairman a decade later, a position he held in the highest regard.

The end result of the painting makes for a brilliant enquiry into the relationship between the painter, institutional patronage and the sitter. Moser is presented as part of a much broader sense of academic standing and the painting gives us a glimpse of each individual aspect of his character.

Image Credit: Rhea Brah

  1. Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida. Translated by Richard Howard, Vintage Classics, 1993. ↩︎

How to make rizz-otto

0

When interviewed for this job, I was asked if I cooked and if I would be willing to write about it for Cherwell. I answered yes, I can cook, though one of my flatmates would disagree. Fortunately, I already wrote about said flatmate’s cooking last term. In the interests of student food journalism, and my appetite, I convinced him to let me document his dishes once again.

The dish of the week was mushroom risotto, a simple Italian classic which nonetheless requires skill, and a patience I have personally never found in a kitchen. Its popularity is in part derived from its adaptability. The recipe can easily be adjusted to accommodate a variety of dietary requirements and preferences, and paired with a selection of light white wines. The mushrooms Jack chose were chestnut and shiitake. Porcini could not be found in our local supermarket at such short notice.

Anyone hoping for more specific ingredient quantities than last time is in for disappointment – this dish was cooked on instinct. It began by toasting the risotto to give it a nutty flavour. This step is not necessary but does improve the final taste. Then the onions were very finely diced and softened (though not browned) on a low heat in a mixture of melted butter and oil. Once they were partially cooked, the finely diced garlic was added, and the onions seasoned with a little salt, though not over-salted in anticipation of the salt in the stock added later. When the onions had softened, he added back the risotto rice, and separately fried the mushrooms.

The next step was to turn it up to high heat, and add a glass of white wine – in this case Dino Pinot Grigio, the cheapest available from our local supermarket. Once the alcohol has cooked off it was time to add stock. Jack recommended chicken, rather than beef for aesthetic reasons, though for this particular meal he used vegetable stock as the dish was vegetarian. Do not add it all at once, but rather little by little, cooking off the liquid each time. This must be constantly stirred, or if you have the skill (which he assures me that he does) tossing is better.

A common misconception is that risotto is made creamy by the butter and Parmesan added at the end, but the process of stirring releases starch from the rice which combines with the liquid to create the creamy quality of the dish. This is the reason a short grain rice is used; it releases far more starch. This stirring and tossing and stirring and tossing took forever. The time was used productively to practise the art of tea towel whipping. Never mind the assortment of knives and onions, this man’s culinary sadism knows no bounds.

Then suddenly the dish was done, the mushrooms combined, the risotto served. Jack elected to use a pecorino rather than a Parmesan cheese for a stronger flavour. I admired the balance between the smooth texture of the risotto, which was not however reduced to mush. It embodied simple umami flavours, warm and comforting in the cold weather. It was also ridiculously filling, so if you don’t have a hoover in human form it might require storage in the fridge. If you do choose to microwave it, some of the liquid may be lost resulting in a reduction of creaminess, but if done well this won’t ruin the dish.

Earlier in this article I mentioned the adaptability of risotto as a staple, and Jack had several suggestions on how that could be accomplished. The obvious variations include different meats and vegetables according to taste. When changing the former, be sure to switch the stock accordingly. Jack also recommended mixing in chorizo, as it releases a reddish oil when cooked, making it useful as a garnish to make the dish more visually appealing. Browning the butter could have a similar impact. Saffron was also recommended as an ideal variation, though this particular ingredient is unlikely to be found in a student kitchen.

Various adaptations of the dish led me to question (or more specifically, question Jack) on the relationship between risotto and paella. They are similar only in that they are both rice dishes – their preparation is very different. Paella is more similar to a Middle Eastern style of cooking, which sees all ingredients combined and cooked together. Risotto on the other hand prepares the rice and other components – such as meat and vegetables – separately until serving. This is somewhat unique as the liquid is continually reduced and replenished, a technique used solely on risotto or arborio rice.

Jack was not the only one of my flatmates to deny the extent (or rather the existence) of my cooking skills – though his critique was certainly the most deserved.

And this was not the first of my flatmates’ risottos I’ve sampled. I have the great fortune to live with Univ’s welfare rep, Marcus, who offered his own take on the dish this time last year. I don’t feel able to comment on the risotto itself, as every element was concealed by the sheer quantity of Parmesan. As the fluid was reduced, this classic Italian dish morphed into a block of solid cheese and rice, with no other discernible flavour or texture than Parmesan.

The only comment offered by the chef – “not enough parmesan”. It is worth mentioning, the flat fridge never contains fewer than four blocks of Parmesan, replenished on an almost daily basis due solely to Marcus’ consumption. Fortunately, his rizz more than compensates for his risotto (I had to work it in somewhere. Be ‘grate’ful I was talked out of ‘rizz’otto. Ok, I’ll stop now). My own culinary creations may not be complex or skilled, but they are at least palatable.

For an easy student meal I can only recommend risotto. It is simple, scalable, adaptable to most dietary requirements, and affordable within a student budget. However, if like me patience when cooking is not your forte, find a friend to cook it for you or the rushed result is sure to be a crunchy, soggy mess.

The Autobiogra-phony

0

I woke up this morning, entangled in my silk sheets and gazed upon my impeccable visage in the colossal seven-foot long mirror. The revelation of my perpetual attractiveness was, unsurprisingly, my first triumph of the day. A rigorous fifteen-minute journey through the expanses of my ultramodern chic mansion led me to the arduous task of overseeing my office, where my dutiful secretary valiantly faced the burden of responding to my many mundane emails. Naturally, I needed a reprieve, so off I went for an urgent Thai stone massage. The inconveniences of my charmed, perfect life persist, as does the indomitable monotony of unparalleled opulence. Life is tough, friends. It always is.

A master of saying everything and nothing all at once! I sure would make a great celeb. Reading certain celebrity memoirs feels like deciphering the elusive aspects of their lives drowned in mundane details and words that I’m almost certain didn’t come out of their own lexicon. Not only is it uninteresting, it’s also a real pain to slog through. 

While some autobiographies disappoint, like Prince Harry’s Spare, others, such as Jennette McCurdy’s I’m Glad My Mom Died, receive my highest praise. With the surge in supposedly self-written celebrity biographies, I can’t help but ask: are they truly penned by the authors themselves, and does it matter if they aren’t? 

Some celebrities, particularly actors, attract avid followers eager to delve into the intricacies of their careers, family backgrounds, and personal lives. For example, A Pocketful of Happiness by Richard E Grant.

Attending Grant’s talk in Oxford during his book tour was a real privilege, providing insights into his upbringing in Swaziland (now Eswatini), his relationship with vocal coach Joan Washington, and his fascination with Barbra Streisand (so I’m sure he is thrilled to also read her recently released memoir). With a blend of tenderness and humour, I was excited to read it after his talk, only to be a little disappointed at its structural integrity. Whilst heartwarming, the narrative lost its charm halfway through with excessive name-dropping and meandering stories. 

Similarly, I encountered struggles reading Making It So. Despite Patrick Stewart’s 83-year-old perspective, the memoir delved mostly into the first 25 years of his life, emphasising acting camps and teenage jobs. Surprisingly, it lacked depth about his later career, especially his iconic role in Star Trek. The focus on career overshadowed glimpses into his personal life, which mostly revolved around childhood or his affairs, but overall provided an interesting perspective, particularly for  those interested in his career at the Royal Shakespeare Company.

I am certain that these books by Stewart and Grant were written by the actors themselves; they are filled with charm but not much editorial intervention.The personal insights humanise these celebrities and yet at times their exploration of topics so extravagant, such as Grant’s friendship with King Charles, makes it difficult to connect with them. Engaging with their audiobooks, however, proves satisfying, given their natural storytelling abilities. 

As fascinating as these grandiose memoirs are, dealing with fame, wealth, and lavish lifestyles, I find a deeper connection with narratives that offer a truly human experience, filled with emotions and relationships beyond the spotlight. Paris Hilton’s memoir, Paris, for example, defies expectations, considering her ditzy socialite persona. It is filled with heavy content shedding light on trauma and abuse during her time at a Utah boarding school. Despite her millionaire heiress status, Hilton’s transparency about collaborating with ghostwriter Joni Rodgers adds commendable authenticity– a rarity in an industry where many celebrities don’t acknowledge external help. 

Critics often reproach celebrities for not openly acknowledging using ghostwriters, deeming it ingenuine and arguing that it diverts resources from lesser-known authors – but I disagree. J. R. Moehringer, the ghost writer for Spare, contends that ghostwriters are essential for crafting the most compelling stories. He likens it to commissioning an artist to paint someone else’s vision. Celebrities bring unique and captivating details, and if they require a writing expert to skilfully articulate their story, collaboration sounds sensible. Ghostwriters, well-versed in the process, contribute to a more polished book, steering clear of mindless word salads in pursuit of authenticity. 

This collaboration enables an unconventional audience to experience the joys of reading, even if only as a gateway into the literary world. Consequently, this can prove beneficial for the publishing industry by generating more revenue. Celebrity memoirs are a reliable source of profit, providing the means to support and publish lesser-known authors. It’s a win-win scenario!

As long as celebrities are transparent and not intentionally misleading their audiences, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t applaud them for utilising writing and ghost writers to share their journeys with the world. 

University Chancellor Lord Patten announces retirement

0

University of Oxford Chancellor Lord Christopher Patten has publicly announced his wish to retire at the end of the 2023-24 academic year, ending his 21-year-long tenure as Chancellor. 

Having read History at Balliol College for his undergraduate degree, Lord Patten noted the impact the University has had throughout his life: “I think it is true to say that Oxford made me, not just because of the three happy years I spent there as a student, but because of what it has continued to mean to me over the years up until the present day.” 

Lord Patten stated: “This year, I will have my 80th birthday in May. I hope there will be many birthdays to come – but I am unlikely to have another 21 years in the job as Chancellor of the University.” He further expressed his wish to continue his involvement with Oxford, “trusting he will still be able to work for [the University] from time to time.” 

Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor Irene Tracy issued a response to the announcement, noting Lord Patten’s commitment to “tirelessly championing Oxford at home and abroad,” as well as expressing her personal gratitude to him for his support in her transition to Vice-Chancellor. 

She wrote: “On behalf of thousands of alumni, students and staff and the many people whose lives have been changed by the University’s work, I thank Chris and his wife Lavender for their service, and wish them well in a richly deserved retirement.”

Before serving as Chancellor of Oxford, Lord Patten was the Chancellor of Newcastle University from 1999 to 2009. He has also held numerous parliamentary roles, most notably serving as the final British Governor of Hong Kong from 1992 until its handover in 1997.

Lord Patten’s full letter of retirement to Professor Tracey is available online.

The Language of Cooking

0

Under Oxford’s dreaming spires and overlooking Magpie Lane’s centuries-old cobbles is a simple modern kitchen. I like to think of it as my friends’ little corner of the world. Here, nine or so teenagers gather for homemade meals twice a week, crowding around induction hobs and squabbling over how an onion ought to be chopped. We claim a space at the heart of Western scholarship and fill it with aromas of multi-ethnic cuisines that reflect our diversity.

I remember, surrounded by this warm messiness, the many times I’ve spoken the language of cooking.

– – – 

When a flock of chattering Chinese-American aunties congregate for the terrifyingly efficient task of folding dumplings, you can always tell which dumplings are produced by whom. Some arch like the spine of a mountain, sealed by intricate folds the shape of a lotus flower, others lie flat like a tame leaf, smooth-edged and round-bellied.

My mother’s dumplings sit primly with curves like the crescent moon – a shape she learned from my grandma, a petite woman with missing teeth and a lyrical Shandong accent. My grandma learned it from her own mother, a beauty with 4-inch-long feet crushed by societal expectations of the last foot-binding generation. Inherited from this line of Northern Chinese women, the crescent-moon dumpling is now proudly mine.

Dishes, like stories, pass down through generations. In my California Bay Area community, most Chinese families know some version of dumpling-making, much like the commonalities found in stories of shared culture and history. We fold these stories into existence through shared words – ingredients like fluffy flour and minced meat – and common grammar – the skilled kneading and flattening of dough under soft palms and hard rolling pins. 

Cooking, then, is a language we speak.

We gather for potlucks on Chinese New Years and Moon Festivals, our multicultural cuisines and bilingual murmurs building a new home an ocean away from our homeland. If I translate our language of cooking, we’d be saying: 四海为家. This is family.

– – – 

I learned the language of cooking when living in Morocco on a year-long US government program to study Arabic. With each personal connection and unplanned adventure, I fell deeper and deeper in love with the wide world out there, wonderstruck. But at the same time, the awareness that I was the only Chinese person around grew sharper, a wound irritated by the constant harassment that followed me down the streets.

“Ching chong Jackie Chan.”

“Korea?” 

“So you’re not pure American.” 

Since moving to the US aged eleven, I’d been living in an Asian-majority community that taught me to believe America is a country of immigrants, even if some people refuse to accept this fact and its beauty. Home is where I order tacos in Spanish, organise Indian catering for debate club, and make spring rolls with my half-Vietnamese family-friends – I call them my cousins when I don’t bother explaining that we are family in every way but blood. Yet, the doubts and confusion of Morocco made me wonder, guiltily, if I was American enough.

My palette soon began craving Chinese food but there wasn’t a single Chinese restaurant in my city. So I made my first Chinese dish for my host family: a simple dish of tomato and fried egg noodles, cooked with trepidation that they might dislike the strange flavours. In the language of cooking I was probing, uncertainly, “my home tastes like this – is it acceptable?”

Their response was lukewarm.

– – – 

The Western holiday season marked peak homesickness for my American friends in Morocco, many of whom had never spent the holidays away from family in a country that didn’t celebrate it. On Christmas Day, we gathered for a potluck party.

I brought hot chocolate and most of my friends brought sweets. However, George went all out and made fifty Vietnamese spring rolls with exquisite peanut sauce. I imagined his meticulous preparation process: a white guy from Virginia softening sheets of rice paper in warm water and tucking chopped salads inside.

My Jewish friend Jacob remarked that it was his first Christmas without eating Chinese food. He explained how, in New York City where he’s from, Jewish families have a centuries-long tradition to get Chinese food on Christmas Eve because no other restaurants were open. He remembered waiting with friends in the biting cold to get their takeout. I pictured the scene: Christmas lights, Hanukkah candles, and red lanterns all decorating the same street where queues of Jewish residents wrap around the corner like an embrace. I pictured America.

If I’d known about this tradition, I told him, I’d have cooked for him that Christmas. In the language of cooking we’d have a conversation between two minorities that historically didn’t fit in, but found their place nonetheless.

– – – 

Slowly I began meeting the few Chinese expats living in Rabat and some Moroccan university students studying Chinese. Together we dunked thinly sliced meat in bubbling hot pots and folded sticky rice balls around sweet stuffings for the Lantern Festival. I thought I could teach my Moroccan friends to make dumplings.

To a medley group, I demonstrated rolling and folding techniques. They quickly caught on after a few oddly-shaped experiments. Imane and Sara, especially nimble-fingered, filled up a large tray at impressive speeds. Watching the dumplings tumble in a pot of foamy hot water, I mused that there was something unusual about all this.

Then it clicked: All the dumplings looked the same. They all sat primly with curves of the crescent moon – like mine, my mother’s, and my grandma’s.

I thought of how, so far away from my grandma in China and my mother in America, I passed on our crescent-moon dumplings. I told our stories, encoded in the language of cooking. I said: “thank you for celebrating my culture.”

– – – 

By the time Ramadan rolled around in late March, I was speaking in Moroccan dialect and functioning in society undaunted. I decided to fast. For a month, I went without food or water from 4am to 7pm before feasting on iftar meals, the hunger and thirst bonding me closer to my local community.

I pondered what to cook for a potluck iftar at school and settled on orange chicken, a fusion cuisine invented for Americans with inspiration from Chinese food. Orange chicken represents the unique branch of food created by centuries of Chinese immigrants in America – inauthentic to the original but glazed with a unique social and historical value.

Chinese cooking never uses precise recipes but rather asks you to judge what is “just right,” relying upon instincts developed over a lifetime. My orange chicken, too, was a whimsically instinctive creation. I fried battered chicken and caramelised them in bubbling orange sauce, with spring onion and sesame tossed into the sizzling pan. The resulting sweet and tangy dish was devoured with fervour by Moroccans and Americans alike.

I overheard one of my American friends explaining to a Moroccan that this chicken is not merely Chinese, nor merely American, but a fusion of both in its essence.

Like me, I thought.

While I had been experimenting with cooking since childhood, my early attempts were like mere babbling – flavours without a profound meaning. But in Morocco I found my culinary fluency, the composition of prose and poetry in a blend of recipe and creative flares. I was saying: “I’m Chinese-American.”

During my last week in Morocco, I decided to cook tomato and fried egg noodles again. I kneaded fluffy dough and cut strips of noodles by hand. I knew my way around the kitchen.

What was once a question had now morphed into a declaration: “My home tastes like this.”

My host mom took a bite. “Bnin bizaf!” she said. Very delicious.

– – – 

I returned to California with new vocabulary in my language, chickpeas and turmeric and other ingredients I’d never used before. With these, I made harira soup and chicken tagine for friends and family, giggling at their struggles to eat with fingers instead of forks or chopsticks. Through cooking I was saying, “Morocco is my home too, and I miss it.”

– – – 

Another year, another home. From different colleges around Oxford, my friends regularly flock to our little kitchen, the spatial heart of our group. Liyanah, of Sri Lankan heritage, made us curries with rich and spicy flavours just like her mother’s. Will, Christmas-obsessed but denies it, made reindeer fudge and brought us a cupcake-decorating kit – resulting in some artistic masterpieces and some less-than-mature jokes. I cooked everything from simple ramen to more elaborate dishes like orange chicken, Mexican rice, and Moroccan tagine.

Not only do the dishes express meaning, so does the context of sharing. The early morning noodles during freshers’ week were an introduction, a “not sure who you are yet but hey” to Lucas and Jake, two then-strangers who have now become my close friends. The pasta on a random Tuesday when our dining hall cancelled dinner on short notice was a message of care, a “don’t worry, I’ve got you.” The taste-test hash browns I offered to neighbours, knocking door to door, were also my checking-in, an “it’s been intense, how are you doing?”

When I cook with friends at uni, I unshoulder the burden of formal dinners and confusing table etiquettes, of immaculate subfusc and formidable architecture, of glamourous lecture halls and Rousseau-esque pontifications – of everything too posh, and too white. I become myself again in our chaotic kitchen with its multi-ethnic food. Here, I’m the only Chinese person, and the only American, but that’s okay because home is no longer one specific place, but the embrace of all places.

On Chinese New Year, inshallah, I will teach my British friends to fold crescent-moon dumplings, tucking all the pieces of myself – China, America, Morocco, and England – into savoury stuffings.

– – – 

After one of our potlucks, I posted a group photo of us with the Arabic word “عيلتي.” The next day, Liyanah told me that she’d drawn up a family tree of our friend group based on our personalities.

She had no idea that عيلتي meant “my family.” I told her, and we marvelled at the coincidence of how we’d both come to the same thought. 

Or perhaps it wasn’t a coincidence, but that we communicated through the language of cooking.

The Oscar Best Picture Winner You’ve Never Heard Of

0

With the Oscar nominations for 2024 having been released in anticipation of March’s ceremony, it is worth looking back on a former Best Picture winner that has never got its due. Ninety years ago this March, the 6th Academy Awards decided that the Best Picture was Cavalcade, an adaptation of Noel Coward’s play about the lives of two London families over the social and historical changes between 1899-1933. For your average film-goer, other 1930s Best Picture winners like All Quiet on the Western Front or Gone with the Wind may ring a bell, but even most film buffs haven’t heard of Cavalcade.

We open with the illustrious Jane (Diana Wynyard) and Robert Marryot (Clive Brook), a Victorian couple celebrating the turn of the century. Most period films smell more strongly of the year in which they’re produced than the year in which they’re set, but here the period setting is convincing and immersive. The costumes and interior design are perfect: Jane and Robert’s glamorous attire embodies the grace, beauty and refinement of a generation. Streets, offices and theatres are set up just as authentically. The production values alone are lavish enough to make the film worth watching: with 150 speaking parts, 15,000 minor roles, 25,000 costumes, a single scene using 2,500 actors, the cinematography is sweeping enough to appreciate it all.

Throughout Cavalcade, the characters are constantly shaped by historical events: the Boer War, the death of Queen Victoria, the First World War, and the Roaring Twenties. The changing experience of Britain – national griefs, joys, trends, and social shifts – are mirrored in the central characters. A subplot concerning the former servant’s daughter marrying the Marryots’ son is an obvious symbol of the shrinking class divide. There is a strong anti-war message, too, in keeping with the times (this was the year that the Oxford Union voted not to fight for King and Country); the mindless jingoism surrounding the wars is contrasted with scenes of soldier after soldier dying.

Some scenes are especially well-constructed, such as the one in which Jane, framed against a backdrop of cheering patriots, tries to compose herself after seeing her husband off to the Boer War. Later, two young newlyweds go for their honeymoon on a cruise ship and, looking out to sea, discuss their hopes and dreams for the future, while gentle music plays in the background. It’s a touching scene, and when the camera zooms slowly onto the deck towards the word “Titanic”, the audience silently understands. Moments like these – with their economy of construction and their reliance on dramatic irony – reveal the skill of Noel Coward’s stagecraft.

The final scene is the most memorable. In a callback to the opening, Jane and Robert, grey and weighed down with age, welcome the New Year of 1933. The New Year itself is symbolic, for the whole film has essentially been about the destruction of the nineteenth century by the twentieth. Jane and Robert are all that remain of the Victorians. There is a tangible sense here of the enormous social change and personal loss that they have suffered; yet still they remain the same people sitting in the same room on the same date as thirty years earlier. Quiet moments like these reinforce the epic, saga-like quality of the rest. Then Robert says: “Let us drink to the hope that one day this country of ours – which we love so much – will find dignity, and greatness, and peace again”, and a montage of modern trends and noisy music takes up the screen; the implication is that the perceived dignity, greatness and peace of the Victorians has vanished forever.

The cast is mostly competent, but Diana Wynyard is by far the stand-out performer. Only Clive Brook comes close. It is Wynyard’s film more than anyone else’s, and she binds the scenes and characters together more centrally than the director. She has a classical acting style and an engrossing screen presence which, together, outweigh the efforts of every other player. This is even more impressive considering this was only her second film. It is unfortunate that she never “made it” as a film actress, her only other memorable roles being Mary Disraeli in The Prime Minister (1941) and as Helen Walsingham in the adaptation of H.G. Wells’s Kipps (also 1941).

It is worth comparing Cavalcade to This Happy Breed (1944), which isanother Noel Coward adaptation about the experiences of a single family over a period of historical change: in this case, 1919-39. Happy Breed is probably the better film. Although it was a piece of wartime propaganda and lacks the grandeur of its predecessor, it benefits from a blend of David Lean’s skilful direction, a largely domestic setting with proto-kitchen-sink realism, and a first-rate cast of household names (Celia Johnson, Stanley Holloway, John Mills) who give the story a homelier and more authentic warmth. It succeeds as both a drama and a social history.

On the other hand, Cavalcade is worth watching for its lavish scale, stagecraft, the absorbing sense of time and change, Diana Wynyard’s performance, and, above all, the little golden statue that it won ninety years ago. It remains a lush spectacle and the only way to live through four decades in two hours.