Sunday 6th July 2025
Blog Page 1331

Union President will not be charged

0

Police and the Crown Prosecution Service will be taking no further action in relation to the accusations of rape and attempted rape made against Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan. This means that Sullivan will not be charged.

Sullivan was arrested on May 7th in relation to allegations made by two undergraduate students, and was bailed without charge until today, 18th June.

A Thames Valley Police spokesperson said, “No further action was taken against the 21-year-old man from Oxford arrested on suspicion of rape and attempted rape.”

A spokesperson for the CPS stated, “Following an investigation by Thames Valley Police, we have decided that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute a 21-year-old man from Oxford who was arrested following a complaint of rape and a complaint of attempted rape made by two women. We will be writing to the complainants to explain our decision in more detail.”

The Union released a statement on Wednesday commenting, “The Union can confirm that the President, Ben Sullivan, was informed by his lawyers at 1550 today that Thames Valley Police would not be pursuing any further action against him.

As far as the Society is concerned, this is the end of the matter. We would like to thank Mr. Sullivan for his work as President under the most difficult of circumstances and wish him well for the future.”

Sullivan has remained in his position as President despite calls for his resignation and avoided facing a vote of No Confidence after members in the chamber voted to not vote on the motion by a margin of 254-101.

 

 

 

Cherwell Festival Guide II- Reading and Leeds

0

Reading and Leeds aspire to a swagger they have never quite achieved. Whilst Glastonbury increasingly comes across like a once-hip uncle desperately trying to stay relevant, Reading/Leeds have all the rock-and-roll attitude of a 17-year-old rebel  trying to pick up girls in his mum’s Vauxhall Corsa without getting hair-gel on her seat covers. Catering neither to the heavy rock market, the mainstream pop-rock market, the experimental rock market, Reading/Leeds always feel faintly pointless.

Location ★★☆☆☆

As the name suggests, these festivals are held in Reading and Leeds, which is a shame. At least they’re both quite convenient on the motorway.

Headliners ★★☆☆☆

The Arctic Monkeys are still OK, probably, but in your heart of hearts you’ll know that seeing them now will never compare to seeing them around the time that Favourite Worst Nightmare came out. Quite why anyone bothers booking the execrable Blink-182 in 2014 is a complete mystery, but the ever-reliable Queens of the Stone Age will ensure that the Friday night, at least, is alive with their timeless riff-lead racket. Macklemore is playing too, but never mind.

Mid-card ★☆☆☆☆

Pusha T’s sparse raps about coke and death are remorseless and brilliant. We Are Scientists are presumablyproducing the same irreverent post-punk racket they were in 2007, the last time anyone checked. And there’s always a chance that Jake Bugg might be struck by lightning before August. But these are the only real highlights. Acts like Paramore and Enter Shikari rely on the devoted support of an ever-dwindling fanbase, and have little to offer that isn’t overwrought and passé. The likes of Courteeners and Warpaint do not even have the benefit of screaming 15-year-old fangirls to mask the sound of their wallpaper rock music. As increasingly seems to happen at rock festivals, the festival organisers have turned to dance music in a half-hearted attempt to stay relevant, to but to no avail. From the pointless unpleasantness of Borgore to the turgid deep house of Ben Pearce, there is nothing on offer here not available in far more abundance elsewhere.

Hidden gems  ★★☆☆☆

As always there are one or two highlights at the bottom of the pile. These include Gesaffelstein playing murkily abrasive techno, the endlessly inventive noise-pop of The Pains Of Being Pure at Heart, and the uncompromising grime assault of Newham Generals. Unfortunately they are drowned by a pile of slush, from the mopey garage-rock of Drenge to the whiney metalcore of Crossfaith (imagine being in a band that not only aspired to sound like Slipknot, but also failed to do so). One of these two stars is earned by La Dispute, the post-hardcore experimentalists who make screamo with far more intellect, nous and technical ingenuity than half the rest of the bill put together.

USPs ★☆☆☆☆

When a festival proudly announces as a WORLD EXCLUSIVE that My Chemical Romance frontman Gerard Way is performing his first ever solo show, it’s time to slowly back towards the exit without making any sudden movements.

Should I go? ★★☆☆☆

It could be worse: they’re not T4 on the Beach by any stretch of the imagination. Osfest, the leading music festival in my home county of Shropshire, was last year headlined by JLS, James Arthur, The Enemy and The Pigeon Detectives. At Reading/Leeds, there are a few of decent acts buried amongst the crap. But it hardly seems worth the effort of rooting through reams of clapped-out guitar bands to unearth these nuggets, especially when you’ll be surrounded by 16-year-old knobheads who remind you all too uncomfortably of your slightly younger self.

Cherwell Festival Guide I – Bestival

0

Bestival is the late-summer festival on the Isle of Wight with a vaguely hippy leaning, tempered by a light smattering of yummy mummies. Fancy dress is theoretically optional, but in practice this year’s ‘Desert Island Disco’ theme will be enforced with military rigour. Rob Da Bank oversees an eclectic weekend of music in a gorgeous setting, striking a near-perfect balance between DJs and live acts.

Location ★★★★☆

The Isle of Wight is a complete pain in the arse to get to. But once you’re there, it’s almost as painful to leave. As sunsoaked as you can get in September without having to learn the Spanish for “I think Jessie Ware just did a wee in my sangria”.

Headliners ★★★☆☆

Hip-hop fans whose senses are not wholly stupefied by G-Funk rhythms and a surfeit of marijuana will surely all agree that Bestival have gone one up on last year’s Snoop Dogg set by securing Outkast. Andre 3000 and Big Boi purvey a brand of southern-fried, jazz-inflected hip-hop which is mesmerisingly complex. The same cannot be said for the instantly forgettable Chase and Status. Chic and Nile Rodgers aspire to nothing more exciting than Chase and Status do, but where the drum and bass duo’s repertoire grows stale in about 30 seconds, the disco stalwarts still sound as fresh as they did in 1978.

Mid-card ★★★★★

Absolutely stacked. Last year’s album of Daft Punk reworks from Darkside mean that Nicholas Jaar’s darkly funky side project is as close as you’ll get to seeing the helmeted electro duo on British soil this summer. It’s always worth checking in on Skream’s evolution from dubstep poster-boy to mad disco scientist, as it is on the tuneful electro-jazz sketches of Bonobo: both are sure-fire festival highlights. The same can be said of Sven Vath, renowned for drawing mammoth 30-hour sets of gorgeous ambient techno from the battered confines of his SL-1200 turntables. Major Lazer, making their solitary UK festival appearance,are everything Chase and Status want to be but aren’t, while Busta Rhymes is utterly daft but utterly brilliant.

Hidden gems ★★★★☆

Elijah and Skilliam’s blog/record label/club night ‘Butterz’ catalysed the recent explosion in instrumental grime, producing endless reams of bass music that is uncompromising but never unthinking. (Don’t be surprised to hear unannounced live PAs from JME and Skepta, also appearing under their own steam alongside Logan Sama.) tUnE-yArDs knock up drum-loops on the spot that lesser indietronica acts can only dream of in the studio, while Public Service Broadcasting do something similar but more exploratory, adding a fantastically eclectic palette of vocal samples to the mix. The scratch genius DJ Yoda includes visuals to his own even weirder cut-and-stick array, and the glossy electro clattering of Sinjin Hawke is just as full of surprises.  Black Country rockers God Damn snort derisively at all of this, and play their guitars really really loud, pitching themselves somewhere between Black Sabbath and At The Drive-In.

USPs ★★★☆☆

The bonus features at Bestival are by no means limited to ‘Breastival’, a yurt solely dedicated to breast-feeding mothers. Sink The Pink is the most outrageously camp piss-up you’ll find anywhere on the festival circuit this year, with the obvious exception of the feather-boa-clad Scottee who will be overseeing a palace full of cabaret and weirdness. There is always a risk inherent in booking Shit-Faced Shakespeare, who perform the bard’s oeuvre in the desperately inebriated condition their name suggests, but if they keep it together then they could be the funniest thing on the bill- apart, perhaps, from the surreal slapstick stylings of comedy duo Twisted Loaf.

Should I go? ★★★★★

Yep. There are better headline options, but festivals are never defined by the names at the top of the card. Under Rob Da Bank’s curation, Bestival has consistently produced lineups stuffed with next year’s breakout acts and the headliners of 2020, and this year looks to be no exception. Perhaps most importantly, Bestival manages to maintain an alternative atmosphere and cater to niche musical tastes without veering into the cringey posturing that increasingly typifies hippy wankathons like Latitude or End of the Road. Great music with nice people in a beautiful place.

Interview: Plum Sykes

0

She was wearing lilac trousers and she told me I looked lovely; I knew early on that I would like Plum Sykes. Mother, owner of a sheep farm, Oxford alumnus, muse and friend of Alexander McQueen, Contributing Editor to American Vogue and author of two (soon to be three) novels; is there anything this woman can’t do?

Coming from a private school education to a degree in History at Worcester during the growth of the rave culture of the late 80s, where swathes of “posh public school boys were suddenly let loose to wear neon t-shirts, yah man”, proved something of a culture shock. After graduating, she realised that the law career she thought she would go into “because that’s what everyone else was doing” wasn’t her style and instead she made the transition to fashion writing. With her twin a stylist, her mother a fashion designer and her grandfather an author and biographer, she thinks that you could say the the Vogue link was “kind of obvious”.

A questionable, yet auspicious start saw her as Chief Filer & Organiser at British Vogue, working for the likes of Issie Blow and Lisa Armstrong. This led to impromptu introductions to the young Bella Freud and Alexander McQueen.

Even once she had the chance to write something of her own, a very English lack of self-confidence still proved an issue and she feared editors simply dismissing her work as rubbish. Mind you, being offered a position as a fashion writer for US Vogue by none other than Anna Wintour herself does something for the self-confidence. No longer in charge of organising someone else’s life, she set herself to the task of her monthly column: “an email conversation between an up-town Park Avenue Princess and a down-town cool girl” – the characters which would later form the base of her debut novel, Bergdorf Blondes.

As working environments go, Sykes’ descriptions of the US and the UK couldn’t be more different. While the latter is, in some ways “still stuck in the Dark Ages”, the former, (New York in particular) is “an amazing place to work as a woman”. The pressure and the competition associated with US Vogue seems understandably intense, but it clearly works out for the best considering the unrelenting attention to detail which provides a certain sense of “authority”. Even though the novels Plum has written since joining American Vogue are fictional, they’ve certainly benefited from the prioritising of a need for accuracy and care instilled in Editor Anna Wintour’s team.

There’s a lot at stake with each publication, with 12-hour days not unheard of –and that’s just time spent in the office! When you factor in the events that need to be attended and reported on, and the weekend return flights to Paris, finding time for yourself is no mean feat. In fact, Plum even advised those looking to a career like this to “remember to get married and have a child or two.” Maybe she was joking, maybe not.

Even with all of that to deal with in the office, I wonder what sort of pressure she feels under to look or act in a certain way, given her 20-year Vogue background. She laughed and gave the knee-jerk response: talking of having to get weekly manicures in New York, partly to steer clear of Ms. Wintour’s distaste for scruffy nails.

More generally speaking, she talks of a greater pressure in the US to be very well turned-out, and that working for US Vogue, “of course everyone looks at what you’re wearing”, but she says that, in a way, that’s “part of the job”. When interviewing Rihanna for the March issue, for example, she didn’t expect her to turn up in an old pair of jeans and no make-up; instead, the singer arrived wearing 20cm stilettos and talon-like nails along with a full entourage. Interestingly, Plum says that celebrities and their style choices make up the bulk of the “personal style” of girls in the States, who are often more focused on trends and having “next season’s Prada shoe” – though Plum herself favours Mr Blahnik. As such, it’s the individuality of British styling which holds more allure for Plum – that, and the ever-polished, elegant look of French twenty-somethings in Paris.
So all in all, yes, it’s been a lot of hard work. And yes, it’s taken a fair while, but with a third book in the pipeline and a job she loves, it’s fair to say Plum Sykes is pretty inspiring. Not bad for someone who said they “would never have a career in fashion”.

Interview: John Rentoul

0

John Rentoul is one of the most experienced and astute political commentators of our age, currently occupying the role of The Independent on Sunday’s chief political commentator. Total Politics gave him what many would consider a backhanded compliment, saying “his column in The Independent on Sunday has become one of the last bastions of pure, unadulterated Blairism”, while at the same time ranking him as the 3rd most important political journalist in Britain. He is perhaps best known for his humorous series of ‘Questions to Which the Answer is No’, which is a collection of absurd and hyperbolic media headlines and includes gems such as “‘Is Spongebob Squarepants the new Che Guevara?” and “ ‘Is this proof the Virgin Queen was an imposter in drag’”. He has continued this as a campaign of sorts against sensationalism in journalism.

But he is most notable as a biographer and chronicler of Tony Blair’s administration. Rentoul professes that so much of his writing has been related to Blair that “when Tony Blair stood down, I thought I was going to be out of a job, because so much of my profession had been made on knowing more about Tony Blair than anyone else!”

We begin by discussing Blair’s early years, as well as how his political style changed while he was in office.

“He matured very fast, matured in opposition as well. Before he became leader he was very good, but he was very inexperienced, you had the sensation soon after he became leader that the wheels are going to fall off this train, he doesn’t have the experience. But he proved to have such a good natural political judgement. He never made the same mistake twice. He learnt and grew amazingly quickly. The Clause 4 debate was one thing where he thought, here’s a big risk we could pull off, and it was spectacularly successful. It was after this that we saw a politician grow to take up virtually all available space in British politics. We forget it now, but there was a period of several years where he was just so dominant.”

Considering the gulf between popular opinion of Tony Blair and Rentoul’s view, I wonder what the most common public misconceptions of the man and his administration are, both at the time and now. “There were so many who projected their personal progressive hopes and expectations onto Blair. Expectations were high and contradictory. Everyone thought they voted for him to do what they wanted. That clearly wasn’t possible. There were people who voted for him because they wanted him to be pro-European and to join the Euro, people who wanted Proportional Representation in voting, people who wanted a rapprochement with Liberals, and all those things were just not going to be realizable. One of the most remarkable things was that he was able to put off the day of reckoning where people were disappointed in him for such a long time.”
But did it come harder once it came? “Yes, because he was able to put off the contradictions for so long that it became quite so vicious.

“A lot of the ‘Blair Rage’ phenomenon that I bang on about was a result of this but”, he pauses; “obviously Iraq was also a very important issue that people felt strongly about.

“I’ve been waiting for Blair revisionism to kick in but he seems to be getting more and more unpopular since he’s left.”

“He behaves in such a way that let people think that he doesn’t particularly care what they think. He swans around the world giving consultancy to what we consider unpopular governments. Also giving vast amounts of money away to charity, and raising money for good cause’s .This is all very un-British and people find it abhorrent that he should have the temerity to do this. Rather he should live on the isles of Scilly and live in sackcloth’s and ashes and do penance for getting the Iraq War wrong
“I’m afraid Iraq has poisoned the well sufficiently that historians will have a hard time looking at his administration objectively.”

We move onto the topic of the most controversial aspect of the Blair years, concerning his interventionist foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq. I ask if early successes, such as in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone or Afghanistan, contributed to a sense of overconfidence in Blair about how easy the invasion of Iraq would be.

“Yes, that is definitely true, Kosovo in particular. It was an extraordinary achievement; people forget how hard it was now to persuade an extremely reluctant POTUS and 18 members of NATO who had to vote with unanimity. You had to persuade Greece and Germany; Germany with its recent history of pacifism, Greece with its problems with Macedonia on the border. And yet Tony Blair managed to do all that, managed to rally the international community behind the idea of interventionism, and it worked so well that within a year Milosevic was deposed in Serbia, so that clearly gave him far too much confidence in his own judgement.

“He should possibly have paid more attention to the fact that people back home gave him no credit for it whatsoever, they were just not interested. People were not interested in their PM swanning around solving the world’s problems.”

After this, Tony Blair’s world view came under a profound shift with the terrorist attacks of September 11. “I don’t agree with Tony Blair regarding the importance of 9/11. I wrote an article for The Independent a week after it happened saying that despite being a great atrocity it didn’t matter very much, and we shouldn’t take Islamic terrorism particularly seriously, which is not Blair’s view.”

He continues, talking about the question of how Blair’s premiership affected Britain’s international standing “The legacy of Iraq certainly had a negative effect on Britain’s international standing, although I still think it was the right decision considering the information we had at the time.”
“As soon as Blair came along he was one of the key players on the international stage in a very short time. But then of course Iraq did quite quickly erode this.”

One major criticism of New Labour was that it was a capitulation to Thatcherism; Blair said that after the 1980s the “battleground of politics is now over efficacy, not ideology” and I put this quote to Rentoul. “That’s one of Tony Blair’s classic phrases where he dresses up something completely banal as some kind of profound insight. He does himself a disservice with this. The idea that Blairism is some kind of continuation of Thatcherism is completely wrong.

“She did do some necessary things in turning around the economy and curtailing the power of the trade unions, but at the cost of huge social divisions. I think New Labour helped to repair those divisions, and towards making Britain a more social democratic country. But she did say the country would be safe in Tony Blair’s hands. Admired him on both a personal and political level. She was very solid on Kosovo for instance, and saw Blair as a necessary reaction to the soft appeasement of the Major government.”

We end by talking about the changing future of media, and I ask him his opinion on those frequently predicting the doom of professional journalism. “Getting paid for journalism is not dying but it is certainly shrinking. The idea of going into journalism as a career where you have a steady job for decades, that’s not really around anymore. The basics haven’t changed. If you’re interested in how things work and communicating that to other people, there is still a job for you somewhere I think Twitter has really transformed journalism in the last 5 years.

“By mistake The Independent’s people put me on Twitter and they put the blog on Twitter and it sort of exploded from there. If you’re not on Twitter as a journalist you are invisible, you don’t make the connections you need to. When I worked for the New Statesman a few years ago, the editor took someone out for lunch and just said, ‘don’t’. But I think if you want it badly enough; you’ll probably succeed in some form. These days you have to be on Twitter, you have to write and blog for nothing. The great thing is how democratic it is. I’ve seen several young people get into mainstream journalism just through being picked up like that. Talent will always shine through, and the only difference is you can spot it so much more easily now.”

Cherwell’s #1 Summer Playlist

0

Summer can be a disappointing season. Dreams of summer lovin’ turn to awkward and disappointing flirtations with the local newsagent, and wild and wonderful holiday plans culminate in a donkey ride to a damp caravan.You may not end up on a beach like this one, but let’s hope that a listen to this playlist can make you imagine that you’re having fun.

Review: Grace of Monaco

0

★☆☆☆☆
One Star

Grace of Monaco sees Nicole Kidman play the saintly Grace Kelly, international movie star extraordinaire turned radi­ant princess, as she bravely defends the princi­pality of Monaco on behalf of her unloving hus­band, Prince Rainier III, against the villainous French, led by Charles de Gaulle, who want to annex the tiny state because (gasp!) they don’t pay any taxes. Using all the weapons in her ar­senal – namely good looks, charm and, er, more good looks – our heroine takes it upon herself to single-handedly save her beloved underdog city of billionaire tax-avoiders. After a journey of self-discovery during which she gets drunk and watches her wedding video with a priest (yes, really), Grace “I am Monaco” Kelly makes a stirring speech about love conquering all and warms even the stony heart of de Gaulle, thus preserving the freedom of her adoptive people to gamble forever.

Saccharine doesn’t cover the half of it. Any film in whose title the main character is re­ferred to by first name is in immediate dan­ger of being overly familiar – imagine if Senna had been called “Ayrton” or Man­dela called “Nelson: Long Walk to Free­dom”. Bleurgh. From the opening shot, the adoring gazes of male extras at the divine Kelly set the sentimental, patron­ising tone of the film. Kelly, Rainier and Alfred Hitchcock become Gracey, Ray, and Hitch as the main characters; in one scene, Kelly and Hitchcock indulge in name-dropping so awful and preposterous that it is almost unbearable (“How is Cary?” asks Grace).

Grace of Monaco is a film that doesn’t understand its own irony. The message is clear: poor Grace is just so tired of furs, pearls and those silly velvet gloves she has to wear. Despite her difficult life in the gilt palace, Grace cares about normal people. Grace knows about European geopolitics. Most importantly, Grace flouts those silly Monégasque roy­al customs. Between scenes of horse riding, swimming in the palace gardens and banquets, Grace finds time to complain about how complicated everything is. It would be galling if it wasn’t so astounding.

Rupert Murdoch famously once remarked that his only qualm in funding Titanic was that everyone knew the ending. I would argue that James Cameron’s success represents proof that a historical film can still be good when one knows the outcome. Grace of Monaco is not that film. Anyone who knows that Monaco is still a sovereign nation knows what is going to hap­pen to Grace and Rainier, and so the drama is utterly flaccid as a result. Equally, the film’s emotional moments are cheesy and contrived. Kidman flounders without any substance to work with in the script; by no means is she to blame for the contradictions of her role, but she is the one who suffers for it.

The cast, too, could have delivered some­thing brilliant had anyone other than Kidman and Tim Roth, playing Rainier, been given more than a bit-part. Robert Lindsay, Derek Jacobi and Olivier Rabourdin all tease the viewer with their poten­tial, but are obscured by the over­whelming attention lavished on the titular character. Roth and Frank Lan­gella, who plays a priest close to Kelly, are both decent but again, are given little to work with.

I’m acutely aware that as a twenty-year-old male, I’m perhaps not this movie’s intended viewer. None­theless, I really don’t be­lieve anyone would give a damn about the strug­gles of the unfortunate Princess Grace. Grace of Monaco doesn’t manage to be offensive or even entirely boring, but ul­timately it is impossible to sympathise with Grace Kelly, and even more so via this woefully-written and poorly-executed endeav­our.

Review: Maleficent

0

★★☆☆☆
Two Stars

In preparation for finally seeing Disney’s Maleficent, I googled it to gauge what oth­ers had thought of it thus far. The top hit was a scathing Guardian review: 1 star, slat­ing the film for its confused intentions and being an overall “derivative mess”. A little perturbed to say the least, I nonetheless put this aside, and as I took my seat in the cine­ma, I was determined to like the film. I really, really was. But unfortunately, I have to admit that The Guardian wasn’t far off.

People are comparing this film to Wicked; but to do so does Wicked a disservice. Wick­ed does not amend the original story, but simply illuminates it from another perspec­tive. Maleficent starts off in the same way, but as the film progresses director Robert Stromberg starts to make drastic changes which render our knowledge of the original tale completely invalid. In my pre-release thoughts, I speculated as to whether Malefi­cent would destroy our classic childhood vi­sions of Sleeping Beauty (1959); as it is, the two films are incomparable.

True, they overlap visually, but the conclu­sion of Stromberg’s film could not be more alternative. Though aspects such as the “true love’s kiss” are given a thoroughly modern (and delightfully feminist) twist, there are so many narrative changes at the close of this film that are problematic and incompatible with the original. To name just one thing: Maleficent does not die. Make of that what you will, but the perfect happy ending felt horribly unfulfilling to me.

However, the look of the film cannot be faulted. In 3D, the visuals are really quite staggering; Hollywood has not seen cine­matic landscaping like this since Avatar. The world that Stromberg creates truly comes alive onscreen, and is nothing short of mes­merising, from breathtaking vast landscape shots to an intricate attention to light, detail and the movement of the camera through this glittering virtual world. The budget was estimated at $130–200 million, and clearly, visuals and world design are where the mon­ey has been spent.

And then, of course, there’s Angelina Jolie, who is absolutely fabulous and looks wonder­ful (kudos to the makeup and costume team). The depth of character that she creates is ex­actly what a film like this needs; we find our­selves rooting for Maleficent, which ticks a big box for Stromberg.

If only the casting of the other actors had been as successful. It isn’t often I find myself actually cringing whilst watching a block­buster movie of this scale, but Elle Fanning’s portrayal of Aurora made me feel like I was being quite literally smacked around the face with sunshine and happiness. Nobody smiles that much in real life, because doing so would be, quite frankly, excruciatingly painful. Sharlto Copley, as King Stefan, abso­lutely nails the “angry Scotsman” archetype, but alternative shades of his character are virtually non-existent.

Maleficent is a dazzling film which is in serious need of a drastic redraft. Disney evi­dently wanted to produce a remake of a clas­sic, but a remake which stood separate from its original (though surely, by principle, this is impossible). In doing so, however, they have lost sight of the basics. This version of the story is full of holes, climaxes early, rush­es scenes from the original that Stromberg feels compelled to include whilst drawing out new narrative sequences that could do with being paid a bit more attention and be­ing paced much more effectively.

Oh, and basic marketing. I previously de­bated who this film would be aimed at…and after having seen it I have unfortunately reached no conclusion. It’s like Disney have tried to do a Harry Potter, creating a film that speaks to all audiences; and it hasn’t really worked. The tone and atmosphere are too dark to be a out-and-out children’s film, but basing the story on a character from a Disney classic makies it difficult to see the attraction for an older, adult audience. What they’ve ended up with is a film which speaks to everyone in part, but nobody as a whole.

Think on your sins, the apocalypse is nigh!

0

The Apocalypse is a popular subject, and with good reason. What better way to add drama than by introducing a deadly meteor, creating a horde of zombies, or just generally suggesting that everything’s about to finally go horribly wrong for the last time?

The term is first found in the Book of Revelations, a name translated from the Ancient Greek ‘Apocalypsis Ioannou’. The book contains a prediction of the end of the world, and the final judgement of humanity by God. Faithful followers of Christ will be granted eternal happiness, while sinners will be cast into the fires of Gehenna and a burning late to suffer for eternity. Various plagues shall beset the Earth, and the world shall end.

This vision of an inevitable and unavoidable end of all, looming ever-present in humanity’s consciousness, is something which can be seen throughout religion. In the ancient Iranian religion, Zoroastrianism, it is predicted that “a dark cloud [will make] the whole sky night” and, just as in Christianity, sinners will be separated from good people. Muslims also believe that the end of the world will inevitably arrive and its demise will be accompanied by many signs,.

All these beliefs point to an original human fear that, with humanity helpless, the world will somehow end.

This primal fear of a supernatural and invincible element has been portrayed countless times. Films like Armageddon, Planet of the Apes and 2012 depict science fiction scenarios in which nature catches up with humanity and wreaks havoc, in the form of an asteroid from space, over-evolved apes and a Mayanpredicted disaster.

Ideas about natural and unpredictable disasters were developed by H. G. Wells and others with the advent of the concept of an alien invasion of Earth. Wells’ War of the Worlds was one of the first works to depict such an event, and this seminal novel has since been adapted in a number of fairly disappointing instances. The book tells the story of aliens, driven from Mars due to the ravages of disease, invading Earth, easily defeating the world’s armies with their superior technology, and then ruling until they encounter their own natural apocalypse in the form Earth-based bacteria. While the story seems initially about an apocalypse for humanity, one might observe that the Martians themselves are on two occasions defeated by nature. The alien invasion trope has since become rather popular, appearing in the film Independence Day, John Wyndham’s 1951 novel The Day of the Triffids and even Queen’s excellent ‘Flash Gordon’.

However, in today’s society these are somewhat rare and unfashionable ways for the world to end. In 1962, American President John F. Kennedy announced that the chance of the world ending as a result of nuclear war in the near future was between a third and a half. The prospect of nuclear war between West and East and the terrifying concept of mutually assured destruction brought the idea of an apocalypse into the realms not just of possibility, but of probability.

A real-life means to the end of the world excited cultural imaginations like nothing else. Peter Tosh’s brilliant ‘We Don’t Want No Nuclear War’, Nena’s ever-recognizable ‘99 Luftballons’ and Kate Bush’s ‘Breathing’ exemplify the boom in disaffected, anti-nuclear sentiment. Bob Dylan’s ‘A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall’ described a nuclear wasteland where “the people are many and their hands are all empty” and “pellets of poison are flooding their waters” as a result of the “hard rain” and “the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world”. These artists formed the voice of a generation desperate for their leaders to see sense and avoid the apocalypse.

Technological fears constitute another vast proportion of apocalyptic stories. The successful Terminator series, as well as The Matrix and I, Robot imagine a world in which machines gain dominance over their human masters, an idea which must surely gain ground after the recent news that a computer from Reading has allegedly passed the Turing Test, and can be declared to have the ability to think.

Similarly, films like 28 Days Later and Zombieland, along with books such as 1954’s I Am Legend place the blame for the end of the world on technological advancement, as human experimentation produces a virus, or some variation on that theme, creating monsters who wage war on humanity.

Once we add to the picture the more recent fear of global warming and a man-made natural apocalypse, depicted vividly in the 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow and lamented in Michael Jackson’s ‘Earth Song’, we can see a change in views of the apocalypse.

While religion tells us that the end will come without warning, and that we can do nothing to prevent it, popular culture prefers to place apocalyptic blame on humanity’s shoulders. There is a rapidly growing idea, supported in some academic circles (notably Oxford philosopher Professor Nick Bostrom), that we will inevitably destroy ourselves. Don’t sit around waiting for the asteroid, get off your arse and recycle your cardboard.

Top 3… Cliffhangers

0

Twin Peaks

David Lynch (1990-91)

A surreal soap opera cum murder-mystery, Twin Peaks follows an investigation headed by Special Agent Dale Cooper into the death of the homecoming queen of a fictional town in Washington. The show was a critical success and has since developed a cult fan base, perhaps because of its mixture of genuine creepiness and the surreal humour of its range of weird characters. Cancelled after its second series, it ends on an unresolved cliffhanger – will we ever really know ‘Who killed Laura Palmer?’

The Handmaid’s Tale

Margaret Atwood (1986)

The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a totalitarian and theocratic state that has replaced the United States of America. Offred, the protagonist and narrator, is a handmaid – a woman assigned to bear children for elite couples; reproduction rates are dangerously low due to sterility from pollution and STDs. The story slips from tales of her daily life to flashbacks. The novel ends with Offred on her way either to prison or to freedom—she does not know which.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%9963%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

Featuring a truly mesmerizing debut from Elizabeth Olsen, this is an understated, deeply disquieting psychological thriller. Protagonist Martha goes to stay with her sister and wealthy husband; it becomes clear through a series of flashbacks that she has escaped from a terrifying cult. Shot and acted more like a drama than a thriller, the film’s wilful ambiguity is its genius. Our expectations are confounded as the film ends not in Martha’s suicide, but in complete, terrifying obscurity.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%9964%%[/mm-hide-text]