Saturday 5th July 2025
Blog Page 16

Recorded theatre: The oxymoron of the prerecorded-live production

Clemmie Ewins
-
0
Recorded theatre: The oxymoron of the prerecorded-live production

In the last half-decade, the medium of ‘recorded theatre’ has undergone a boom, with it now being the expectation that performances of all levels not only be observed in person but also preserved on film. While there are obvious advantages to this new hybrid medium, are we witnessing the downfall of the priority of ‘LIVE’? 

The concept of recorded theatre seems an oxymoronic one: how can a medium defined by its being live, in person, and on-stage suddenly become pre-recorded, remote, and on-screen? Just as digitalisation has done with countless other concepts, the very definition of theatre is changing. 

Recorded theatre is undoubtedly helpful in its ability to widen the catchment of those able to witness outstanding shows. For example, National Theatre Live claims to offer audiences the best seats in the house from the comfort of their own home or a cinema at a fraction of the price of a seat in the stalls, with performances such as Jodie Comer’s ‘Prima Facie’, Rosamund Pike in ‘Inter Alia’ and Ncuti Gatwa in ‘The Importance of Being Earnest’ all on offer. But most will acknowledge that there is always something missing from seeing the performances second-hand. After all, theatre is unique in its spontaneity: a performance is a one-off event that cannot be replicated and the same can be said for the audience experience of a live show. 

But perhaps what we lose in ‘live feel’, we gain in education: through the increasing culture of recorded theatre, students, actors and fanatics alike can analyse performances through watching and rewatching in a way that’s never been possible before. We are living in a world in which the memories of some of the greatest performances of the age are being lifted out of the mouths of their audiences and placed onto the screens of the masses: Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as The Creature in the NT’s ‘Frankenstein’  is not just the stuff of myth, held in the memories of the select few live-audience members, only accessed through attempted articulation to others, but it’s now a single search away on YouTube and has become a cultural staple of recorded theatre. We have access to master performers and classic shows. In this way, there is a huge new opportunity for aspiring actors, writers and directors to study their favourite plays.

So how then should student drama embrace recorded theatre? At Oxford University, the student theatre scene is rich and incredibly broad with a range of performances varying in budget, venue, cast size and content. But is it worth investing in a university-wide means of recording all productions and preserving the beauty of student theatre for generations of thespians? Or should the intimacy that student theatre invites be left to those dedicated to the live shows? 

For many, this potential investment is not necessarily practical. Budgeting is already stretched thin for most productions, and recording performances would only add to the strain and for what purpose?

If student theatre can remain raw and impromptu as it is in its current un-recorded state, let it. The beauty of student drama is in its slightly unrefined, almost haphazard nature; every performance is the product of genuine desire to perform for the sake of performing. Audiences revel in sitting on that knife-edge of potentially witnessing something groundbreaking or something downright awkward, and recording those kinds of unexpected works would simply dull that thrill. Despite the pressing academic deadlines and the general business of university life, student plays are the result of impassioned individuals taking the time to make a statement and make it on a stage of all places. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here, folks. The joy of university plays is their unexpected brilliance, so let’s keep it unexpected.

Review: The Boys by Leo Robson – ‘Sparkling, enjoyable, sad’

Hassan Akram
-
0
Review: The Boys by Leo Robson – ‘Sparkling, enjoyable, sad’

There is a passage in James M. Cain’s Double Indemnity (1943) in which an insurance agent, warming up to defraud his company and murder a client, likens himself to the casino man behind a roulette-wheel: 

“I’m an agent. I’m a croupier in that game. I know all their tricks, I lie awake nights thinking up tricks, so I’ll be ready for them when they come at me. And then one night I think up a trick, and get to thinking I could crook the wheel myself…” 

A similar thing happens when literary critics turn to novel-writing. They have spent so long combatting tricks that they eventually start thinking up their own. Not all good critics make good novelists. Some good novelists make bad critics. Some great critics write terrifyingly bad novels. Leo Robson – a croupier who reviews copiously for the New Statesman, New Left Review, and London Review of Books, and therefore knows all the tricks – is both an excellent critic and an excellent novelist.  

The Boys is the sparkling, enjoyable, and sometimes sad story of Johnny Voghel, a thirty-year-old university administrator grieving both his parents while navigating some extraordinarily tangled relationships between a half-brother, half-nephew, half-great-niece, aunt, girlfriend, and two students, all during the 2012 Olympics in the oddly specific locality of Swiss Cottage (a part of London which must be alien not only to non-Londoners but to anyone unfamiliar with the grey spots of the Jubilee Line). 

Debuts can be brought down when the author possesses one of a) overambition in describing things about which he knows nothing, or b) uncertainty as to how to sustain a narrative beyond a limited wordcount. Robson, with his critic’s eye, spots these bear-traps but avoids them too self-consciously. In response to quibble a) he writes about what he knows, but that means confining himself largely to a very narrow milieu of North London postgrads; some of the best passages only come when he looks beyond this range, for instance when Johnny reflects on the history of his family of Jewish immigrants. In response to quibble b) Robson expands the word count all right, but with the result of a loosely plotted, loosely structured book, stuffed with rambling conversations, long fluid sentences, and padded-out descriptions of London meals and walks, which might have made a good novella but which, spun out to three hundred pages, can lose its momentum.  

Though it has a serious emotional core and contains a powerful account of grief, The Boys is fundamentally a comic novel: it belongs to the school of English comic fiction whose originator was Henry Fielding and whose greatest living practitioner is Jonathan Coe. The criticisms of Robson which I have made above – leisurely pacing, unnecessary details, and aimless tangents under whose weight an infirm plot gasps for breath – are all characteristic of this school. They do not matter, because of the simple fact that Robson is funny. His humour is one of two special qualities which mark him out as a writer of rare power. He can write about ubiquitous things, such as Selfridges or smoked-salmon bagels, and make them seem hilarious: 

“‘You don’t mean your Selfridges ban?’ At some point before my brief stint working there, Lawrence had been involved in an incident of minor vandalism, as well as repeated attempts to steal a waistcoat.” 

“Lawrence was leaning over the kitchen counter. ‘Whoever invented cling film was a cunt.’ He was surrounded by the debris of three or four attempts to wrap a smoked salmon bagel.” 

In both these instances, it will be seen, the source of the humour is a single character. And that leads on to Robson’s second great quality: his power of characterisation. Though it is difficult for a writer to be funny, it is even more difficult to draw characters who are funny in themselves, as Robson’s characters are. His paper-and-ink figures – especially Johnny and Lawrence, the “boys” of the title – inspire the affection and attachment that usually come from real-life friendships. When I turned the last page of The Boys the feeling was not of having finished a novel but of having spent a week – a very funny and emotionally turbulent week – with close friends in London.  

In his next novel Robson would do well to hone these two great gifts, humour and character; if he does so, he will become that rare thing, a debutant who fulfils his promise.

The Boys by Leo Robson is published by Riverrun (£16.99). ISBN: 9781529428186

Playing with history: How does theatre shape our past?

Nancy Gittus
-
0
Playing with history: How does theatre shape our past?

There is nothing more fascinating than a good historical drama; something about a true story that packs an extra punch, an added shiver down the spine. However, it is important to be aware that dramas based on historical events are exactly that: based. 

In any case, it is quite impossible to give a “true” rendition of history. History is a too cumbersome and overcomplicated thing to ever drop neatly into a plot line with villains and heroes premade. It is necessary for playwrights to adapt, mould and simplify when  producing an effective tale. However, rather than berate theatre for not attempting the impossible task of historical accuracy, is it not more interesting to focus on what insights historical theatre can provide us with?

Hamilton is undoubtedly one of the best known musicals in the world. Famous for its incredible music, and ability to turn challenging subject matter into fast-paced, yet easily digestible entertainment. Hamilton has brought historical drama to the attention of theatre critics across the globe but, of course, the musical is not completely faithful to the real life of its eponymous hero.

Hamilton’s complicated relationship with the slave trade is simplified in his favour, allowing the audience to sympathise more easily with the story’s protagonist. His duel with Burr is depicted as taking place directly after and due to Jefferson’s election, whereas the real duel took place many years later. However, this simplification is necessary to produce engaging story arcs and characters who, whilst being certainly well-rounded, are not so overly complicated that the audience does not know who to sympathise with. Instead, Hamilton gives us an opportunity to examine broader themes of the period; the importance of honour or the atmosphere of ambition in newly independent American society. 

The most interesting thing, historically speaking, about Hamilton is its self awareness. During the song ‘History Has its Eyes On You’, Washington reflects on how vulnerable his story is to manipulation by future generations. The play has a wonderful sense of its own being in this way, with Lin Manuel Miranda clearly pointing out both his own manipulation of historical fact and a broader warning about the malleability of history, emphasising our lack of control over how history is recorded and perceived. Miranda’s very transformation of these historical figures into characters emphasises this point. 

Martin McDonah’s Irish plays, such as The Cripple of Inishmaan or The Lonesome West, although highly comedic, also contain several insightful comments on life in 20th century rural Ireland. His plays are permeated with a sense of claustrophobia and emphasise the poor quality of life experienced in tiny, rural communities at the time. McDonagh creates a complexity to the reception of his characters, simultaneously provoking laughter and sympathy. He encourages a wider compassion for the ordinary, luckless inhabitants of history, whose stories although not grand or well recorded are nevertheless worthy of attention. 

It is also interesting to consider how plays could be interpreted as historical artefacts in and of themselves. Shakespeare’s Richard III portrays King Richard as a ruthless and irretrievably corrupted murderer, by blaming him for the death of the princes in the tower, despite the fact that the true events of this story were, and still are, unknown. By doing this, Shakespeare manipulates historical figures and facts to promote the Tudors who usurped Richard’s throne as a just and righteous house; an attempt, perhaps, to gain favour with the contemporary monarch, Elizabeth I. Richard III, therefore, gives us an excellent insight into the ways in which theatre was used as propaganda in Tudor England, as well as a tool employed by Shakespeare to further his political advancement. 

We can not use historical plays alone to learn about history. However, they can supplement and support our understanding, provoking questions about how history is shaped and by whom, providing an alternative route, from the dusty tomes of the history shelves, to engagement with our past and the stories of our ancestors. 

The Oxford Union believes that the right to die is a human right

Lilly Law
-
0
The Oxford Union believes that the right to die is a human right

On Thursday night, the Oxford Union debated the motion “This House Believes the Right to Die is a Human Right”. It was carried by a majority of 41, with 175 votes in favour and 134 votes against. 

Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent barrister in public law, and Lord Neuberger, former Supreme Court judge, spoke for the proposition. His Eminence Anba Angelos, the Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London, and Professor Sleeman, a palliative care doctor and researcher, spoke for the opposition. Jennifer Yang, Secretary of the Union, also spoke for the proposition, while Katie Pannick opened for the opposition.

Before the debate began, Anita Okunde, the President, introduced a piece of President’s business. This was a motion to reinstate a standing rule to fly the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag during Pride month. Okunde stated that the rule had previously been included, but had been “accidentally” removed. Earlier this month, the Standing Committee voted 7-4 against reinstating it. 

Arguing for her motion, Okunde emphasised that what she sought was “transparency, not tokenism”, and that she was not seeking to reinstate the rule “because it is radical… but because it is right.” She asserted the importance of openness and democracy, and criticised the unannounced removal of the rule “without a vote, without a record, and without an explanation.” Her speech was followed by loud applause.

One member stood in opposition. Charles Amos took issue with the “political” nature of the flag, and argued that the Union did not fly political flags. He called the business a “wretched motion” and reduced it to “tokenism”. He cut himself off before detailing precisely what the motion was an “attempt by the President” to do. Some groans followed.

The motion was carried, with deafening ayes. The noes appeared to come exclusively from Amos’s direction.

The evening’s debate centred on “the right to die”, and whether it constitutes a human right, particularly due to its clash with the central right to life. Currently, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, is at the report stage in the House of Commons. If it passes and receives royal assent, this bill will legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, subject to certain safeguards. 

Secretary Jennifer Yang opened the debate, in her first paper speech. She contrasted the abstract arguments for the sanctity of life with the “grinding reality” that those with degenerative illnesses faced, invoking “patients trapped in a broken body, pain no medicine can touch”. From a linguistic perspective, she argued that “human” has two meanings – firstly as individual and distinct biologically from animals, and secondly as synonymous with compassion and righteousness. From these strands, she argued that autonomy and dignity are the most important human qualities. In cases where there is a “grave incompatibility between mind and body”, she argued assisted dying “reconciles the gap and restores a person’s autonomy.”

While introducing the speakers, Yang said she was “excited to see which side of the House will ‘Pannick’ more tonight”. Katie Pannick, a History student at St John’s, opened for the opposition. She immediately addressed “the elephant in the room” – her father, Lord Pannick, was sitting opposite her. On the topic of ‘nepo babies’ she joked that “if it wasn’t for [her] illustrious career in the Union, [Lord Pannick] might never have been invited to speak” at the debate. 

Pannick devoted most of her time to a practical evaluation of the right to die. She set out the content of the Assisted Dying Bill, and considered its safeguards. She suggested that there would have to be absolutely no error within the assisted dying process for it to be viable, and this was simply impossible – doctors make mistakes in far less important areas. Even if there were sufficient resources, she argued that they should go towards addressing palliative care, or the root causes of despair. A right to die would instead lead to a society that “begins to accept death as a solution to their social and economic problems”, and a state that “moves from protecting life to facilitating death”.

Lord Pannick continued for the proposition. He picked up on a point made by his daughter that the Assisted Dying Bill “makes legal what would otherwise be considered murder”, and correctly argued that this is not legally true. He detailed the Suicide Act 1961, which decriminalised assisted suicide, as well as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows adults of sound mind to give direction not to be resuscitated. He argued that the Assisted Dying Bill merely filled the gap left by these acts, for those who need assistance to die. In short: “I say to those who are arguing against this proposition – You’re too late! You’re 64 years too late.”

Professor Sleeman was next for the opposition. She emphasised that her opposition was not to the principle of a right to die, but to the practical implications it would incur. The vulnerable populations most at risk, in her view, “are voiceless in this debate. We don’t hear from them. We can’t.” As a palliative care doctor, she discussed her experience in deprived areas, where elderly patients had an average reading age of 8. In light of this, she considered the proposed safeguards. She argued that mental capacity requirements, and assessments of an absence of coercion would not be effective for the most vulnerable. She feared systemic coercion, as well as “people ‘choosing’ an assisted death because they can’t get the care they need.”

Lord Neuberger concluded for the proposition. Like Lord Pannick, he made a more practical argument based on legal reality. He argued that “the current law… actually criminalises compassion” by preventing those who require assistance to die from doing so. He did acknowledge the dangers of abuse, but emphasised that the response to this would be “curbing freedoms appropriately, not removing them.” Ultimately, he argued there should be a balance struck between “the risk of a few cases of abuse… with the assistance you’re giving to many people who are suffering badly”. He also criticised the ‘slippery slope’ argument as the “last refuge of someone who can’t find any objection to legislation”.

Archbishop Angelos closed the debate. He emphasised his religious perspective, but also his experience with dying and despairing people. In their lowest moments, he argued, people want to die, “but they come back from it”. The pain these people felt should be treated with “support and embracing” not a “quick fix”. He considered people feeling like a burden, and argued that the option of assisted dying would only amplify this feeling. He highlighted the need to “fight for every life, even if the holder of that life feels like he or she is not worth being fought for”, and the danger of giving into despair with easy access to assisted dying. 

The result was at odds with the general public. YouGov’s most recent survey had 75% of British adults in favour of assisted dying being legal, with 13% against, and 14% not knowing. The Oxford Union was far more divided. With 175 ayes and 134 noes, the split was 57% for and 43% against.

Beauty without a purpose: Nature and the Oxford mind

Saskia Maini
-
0
Beauty without a purpose: Nature and the Oxford mind

Our recent spell of sunshine has offered a welcome opportunity to rediscover the natural beauty that the city of Oxford nurtures. Perhaps you’ve enjoyed a picnic by the river in Christ Church Meadows, played a game of frisbee in University Parks, or gazed at the horses in Port Meadow. You may have also caught sight of a squirrel springing between branches or heard birdsong cooing among the trees. 

Architecturally, Oxford is a beautiful city as well. With the exception of hotly contested brutalist architecture, much of Oxford’s charm lies in how its architectural grandeur entwines with the natural environment – ivy climbs the walls of centuries-old buildings, while oriel windows are bordered by flowers in full bloom. After a typically bleak Hilary term – when most of us were tucked away indoors, hiding from the grey skies and constant drizzle – this reappearance of life feels restorative. When the sun does finally come out, everyone takes notice. It’s a quiet reminder that nature can subtly lift the weight of the term-time intensity. And haven’t we all felt better for the arrival of spring?

Scientifically speaking, at least, we certainly should have. It is popularly touted because it holds true: spending time outdoors in nature is good for you. Some theorists suggest that nature’s inherent mathematical order may provide us with a subconscious sense of harmony and coherence. It is, perhaps for many, the rare situation in which fractals, the Fibonacci sequence, or Euler’s number produces calm rather than anxiety. It’s a compelling idea to consider how such underlying structures might influence our perception and wellbeing.  

In fact, time spent in nature may even have improved the quality of your work. Research suggests that exposure to natural environments can enhance cognitive function by restoring attention and supporting sustained concentration. Combined with the physical benefits already mentioned, this creates an ideal setting for clearer thinking and more focused study. Taking a quiet walk to your favourite green area might be more than just a break. It could be the reset your brain needs to re engage with the demands of academic life.

The philosophers agree that nature makes us feel better. Immanuel Kant delves into this in his Critique of Judgement, where he suggested that we find beauty in nature not because it serves a purpose, but because it doesn’t. It simply is. In our world of deadlines and goals, natural beauty offers us an experience free from self-interest. While nature has biological roles which serve us that is not why we walk through Magdalen’s deer park or linger by the Cherwell. We simply pause to appreciate.

Similarly, in the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also looks at the theory that natural beauty makes us better people morally. Ultimately, the fact that we derive pleasure in something which is an end in itself may make us more open to being moral in general. The positive effect nature has on us can disseminate to other parts of life. On a societal level, we can conclude that it makes us more gentle in all parts of life. We become more moral, and the world becomes a better place.

Hopefully, we can carry this aesthetic disposition into other areas of our lives, into how we engage with friends, family, attend events, or pursue intellectual curiosities – not merely as a means to an end, but for the intrinsic joy they offer. Perhaps this helps explain the delight we feel when admiring Oxford’s ornate stone buildings and the discomfort sparked by its more brutalist corners – think St John’s Sir Thomas White Building, Somerville’s Margery Fry and Elizabeth Nuffield House, or Keble Road’s Denys Wilkinson Building.

Recent years have seen mounting threats facing our green spaces. Urban development and pollution increasingly loom over the green spaces we so enjoy. Despite our regular enjoyment of these environments, many of us remain unaware of their vulnerability. We picnic beside the Cherwell, have a croquet game in the college gardens, or read under the shade in University Parks – but too rarely do we consider how we might give back. The preservation of Oxford’s wildlife is not simply a matter of environmental stewardship, but a defence of something more intrinsic to the very nature of student life here. It is a matter of protecting those moments of outdoor tranquillity that punctuate the academic intensity of a library session. Perhaps it is the very aesthetic characteristic of nature which could ultimately help it save itself from us.

What is it, then, that Oxford’s flora and fauna gives us? Oxford’s natural spaces provide something humbly essential: physically, psychological, and philosophically. So, take time to visit your favourite green space. And when you’re there, consider the effect it has on you. Not just physically and psychologically, but morally.

‘Stop the hate’: Anti-racist demonstrators in counter-protest against ‘Great British National Strike’

Cherwell News
-
0
‘Stop the hate’: Anti-racist demonstrators in counter-protest against ‘Great British National Strike’

A protest by Oxford Stand Up to Racism (OSUTR) assembled in front of Carfax tower at 11am this morning in opposition to a ‘Great British National Strike’ called by supporters of far-right anti-Islam activist Tommy Robinson.

Around 100 OSUTR protestors were gathered at the end of Cornmarket, outnumbering the few dozen far-right demonstrators. 

The “GBNS” was originally advertised by an anonymous organiser on TikTok, according to the New European. “On the 24th of May Great Britain will hold a national strike, the Great British National Strike. Why? Well, because Great Britain is under attack. You and I, as you watch this video, you are under attack.”

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was charged with harassment causing fear of violence on 21st May. The incidents concerned occurred between 5th and 7th August 2024, amid national Islamophobic violence.

A flyer distributed by OSUTR at the protest read: “Supporters of Britain’s most notorious Nazi Tommy Robinson have called protests in 74 towns and cities across the UK today under the slogan ‘The Great British National Strike’ – though they aren’t asking anyone to stop work and no trade union is backing them.”

This protest forms part of a national counter-demonstration against the “Great British National Strike”, as advertised on OSUTR’s instagram, with similar movements taking place across the country. 

A spokesperson from OSUTR told Cherwell: ““There’s an event called the Great British National Strike that’s been called by people who are associated with the far-right, and they’re raising various public slogans and marrying their very hard-right racist ideas to mobilise people, also to harden a sort of right wing cadre in society.

“We’ve come out to oppose them, but there are known fascists in the mobilisation over there, they’ve pulled a rump of people around their racist ideas.”

A post in the Facebook group ‘The Great British National Strike’ listed “illegal immigration”, “net-zero”, “inheritance tax”, “rape gang inquiry”, “freedom of speech”, and “reversal of benefit cuts” as the objects of the demonstration. One GBNS demonstrator wore a T-shirt reading “Free Tommy Robinson”.

One of the GBNS demonstrators told Cherwell that she joined the movement in support of “WASPI [women against state pension inequality], pensioners, farmers”. She told Cherwell: “Rachel Reeves is a thief to the population of the UK.” She did not identify as being “far right” noting that she “got a Syrian refugee his British citizenship”.

In response to the claims that the GBNS group were protesting the cost of living, the OSUTR flyer read: “they are yrying [sic] to use legitimate concerns over cost of living, winter fuel payments and claim to be open to all, but their twitter page is rife with uncritical support for last weekend’s fascist protests in Bristol and Birmingham.”

An OSUTR spokesperson told Cherwell: “some of them have come out I think quite misguidedly on the idea that they’re going to do something for rich farmers, opposing the inheritance tax, things like that, but actually […] we’re trying to explain that people who are mobilising them are actually racists and fascists.”

At 12.55pm, the Great British National Strike [GBNS] crowd began marching down Cornmarket. Police were seen physically moving OSUTR counter-protestors out of the way. The OSUTR protest followed GBNS on their way, chanting “there are many many more of us than you”.

The demonstration and counter-protest returned to Carfax tower shortly afterwards, having marched down Beaumont Street, across Gloucester Green, and back up George Street.

Archie Johnston and Arina Makarina contributed to reporting.

Indicative no confidence motion passed against Oxford Union President

Cherwell News
-
0
Indicative no confidence motion passed against Oxford Union President

The Oxford Union’s Standing Committee (TSC) has passed an indicative motion of no confidence in the President, Anita Okunde. In a meeting on Saturday morning, the Union’s governing body voted 12 votes to 5 in favour of no confidence, with one spoilt ballot.

Ex-President Israr Khan brought the motion after he was banned from the buildings by the President. This ban was later overturned, but the no confidence motion was brought on the basis that the President had misused her powers.

The move to bring a no confidence motion has prompted criticism from other members of the wider committee, with one telling Cherwell: “It’s an open display of bullying and cruelty. Those responsible, and those without the balls to call it out, should be ashamed.”

Israr Khan told Cherwell: “This President is acting like an authoritarian ruler, not the head of a democratic society. She has bent the rules to suit herself and her friends, silencing voices that challenge her, and abusing her powers to manipulate outcomes. I raised genuine concerns about important meetings being held at odd hours – early morning on a weekend – but instead of addressing those concerns, she chose to exclude me from the Union entirely.

He added: “When I was President, I had the same powers, but I never used them to silence my opponents, because I believe in fairness and democracy, not authoritarian control. The Union deserves better than this. We need a President who listens, not one who silences; who acts for the good of the Society, not just for herself and her friends.”

A public letter signed by 11 members of TSC, including the President-Elect Moosa Harraj, Ex-President Ebrahim Osman Mowafy, and the Treasurer Rosalie Chapman echoed Khan’s points. They called for a written apology from the President, a review of her use of disciplinary powers, a “reaffirmation of the impartial application of procedural rules,” and for the President to resign.

Other voices on TSC have opposed the move. An Ex-President, who wished to remain anonymous, told Cherwell: “The President has repeatedly been subjected to disrespectful, misogynistic behaviour at TSC; this performative ‘No Confidence’ motion is yet another attempt to intimidate her after she took action against the Ex-President [Israr Khan].

“Claims that TSC members feel “unsafe” are a perfect example of this ridiculous political charade – Union member should feel highly concerned about the current state of the governing body.”

Chris Collins, an Ex-Secretary, said: “The first black woman ever to be President of the Oxford Union was smeared, belittled, and bullied for over three hours.”

In response to these claims, Khan told Cherwell: “These are not baseless accusations – they are part of a pattern of behaviour where power is abused, rules are bent for friends, and dissenting voices are silenced. The no-confidence motion was not about “intimidating” the President – it was about holding her to account for these very actions.” 

Khan was briefly banned from Union premises under Rule 51(a), which states that “The President … shall have the power to refuse entry into the Society’s Buildings to any person if they … are reasonably satisfied that such measures are necessary for the good order of the Society’s Buildings or the best interests of the Society.”

The motion follows several weeks of chaotic TSC meetings in which the validity of various motions have been questioned. Ongoing debates around potential rules reform have continued to cause division, with allegations of mistrust on both sides.

Under the Union’s rules, the President can only be removed from their position if a motion of no confidence is signed by 150 members, following which a poll occurs of all members.

The Oxford Union was approached for comment.

Food, fashion, and escapism in a cost of living crisis

Charlie Bowden and Tara Earley
-
0
Food, fashion, and escapism in a cost of living crisis

Food costs have been front and centre in newsreels as of recent months, whether through Trump-inspired ‘eggflation’ or farmers’ protests against Labour’s inheritance tax policies. It’s unsurprising, therefore, that the fashion world has capitalised on this cost-of-living craze, making luxury items desirable by associating them with culinary delights. Though its uptake is a recent phenomenon, the association between food and fashion has a storied history.

Elizabeth Goodspeed traces the involvement of food in fashion back to Elsa Schiaparelli’s 1937 lobster dress, popularised by Wallis Simpson. The Italian designer was a friend of Salvador Dalí and drew inspiration from Surrealism, notably Dalí’s own Lobster Telephone of 1936, to create the gown. It has had a long afterlife, with Anna Wintour wearing a gown inspired by the original for the 2012 Schiaparelli-themed Met Gala. Two years later, Karl Lagerfeld staged a Chanel runway in a supermarket, and Kristen Stewart was photographed for Elle in a similar setting: clearly, cuisine has been fertile ground for experimentation among fashion tastemakers for some time. However, it is only recently that incorporating food into fashion went mainstream.

The current ‘food-core’ vogue found its footing in 2020, when many sought to escape the dark times of the pandemic with whimsical and colourful fashion choices. The Lirika Matoshi strawberry midi dress, one of quarantine’s most buzz-worthy items, communicated this need saliently. Multiple food-centric niches grew from this COVID-era trend, such as the ‘strawberry girl’ aesthetic, which combines a fruit-inspired palette with stylings reminiscent of the ‘50s. For designer and fashion consultant AJ Valentine, this movement mirrored other popular ‘recession-core’ pieces like ballet flats, which are “optimistic, cheeky, saturated in colour, and reflect the simple joys of life”. The everyday world had become an object of romanticisation for those who emerged into adulthood during lockdown.

Food aesthetics continue to be instrumental in building a pop culture titan’s image. Celebrities have taken advantage of such fads to develop consistent branding, such as Sabrina Carpenter, who released her Cherry Baby fragrance the same month as her hit album Short n’ Sweet. As with many Gen Z trends, millennial nostalgia looms overhead, with these products calling back to fruit-flavoured Lip Smackers and Victoria’s Secret body sprays. 

A recent advert by Swiss sports brand On features Zendaya in a fake film trailer sporting prosthetic ears and leaning against a punching bag made of cereal flakes. The eclectic use of breakfast food contributes to the inherent goofiness of the parody, but it’s also part of an elaborate commercial strategy; it wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t marketable. Last year, the Galliano gown she wore to the Met Gala featured fruit accoutrements at her waist and around her arm.

Other celebrities have cashed in on the trend through their own beauty brands too – a notable example is Hailey Bieber’s strawberry glaze-flavoured lip treatment with Krispy Kreme in 2023, and her strawberry glaze skin smoothie one year prior. 

Bieber has been the driving force for many food-related trends in fashion and makeup, helping to popularise neutral-heavy ‘latte makeup’ around the same time as her lip collaboration. Despite having nothing to do with coffee,the fact that trendsetters labelled it as such is evidence of ‘food-core’’s selling power in the world of post-pandemic beauty. In her recent collaboration with Fila, the promotional photoshoot features Bieber driven to distraction by her nails (also a frequent site of food inspiration) and spilling coffee on the floor. Another sees her spilling groceries out of a bag with a dummy and baby bottle in her hand, seemingly portraying a new mother struggling to balance her responsibilities. However, the consumer knows implicitly that this suffering is for show to appear relatable in a time of economic downturn.

In March, the British Retail Consortium reported that consumers continue to expect to spend most of their money on groceries. Rising food inflation, a new packaging tax, and increases to staff costs all threaten to push supermarket prices even higherFor many, it is simply not an option to waste food or spend extra on name-brand items. 

The lipstick index, a marketing hypothesis linking periods of economic recession to the increased sales of more affordable luxuries, may help explain the appeal of pairing food with fashion. When applied as a form of price anchoring, this juxtaposition situates food as the more attainable luxury, even as its own costs rise, reinforcing the exclusivity of designer brands. Yet food’s new elevated status can also confer cultural prestige onto the item or brand it accompanies, creating a dual effect to amplify desirability.

This extends down to the consumer: where influencer ‘hauls’ previously featured premier beauty products and accessories, airtime is now devoted to the art of ‘fridgescaping’ – rearranging one’s household essentials as though curating an ornate exhibition – or even unpacking groceries, a clear marker of our heightened food insecurity.

Grocery shopping – once little more than a mundanity – has been increasingly glamorised in everyday fashion as a result. Following a Balenciaga collaboration bringing grocery bags and coffee cups to the runway, the Los Angeles chain Erewhon remains the site of social media buzz thanks to their coveted smoothies and singular $19 strawberries originating from Japan. Erewhon has cemented itself as a leading name in wellness aspiration, offering an exclusive nutritious aesthetic in an era equating status and health. The integration of food into fashion has moved beyond experimental or subversive anomalies to a prolonged commitment depicting food as a luxury. While earlier blends of the two centred delicacies such as lobster and champagne, more traditional staples like produce and butter are now persistently flaunted.

In response to our newfound freedom post-COVID, brands are prioritising in-person marketing to elevate not just the image, but the experience of food itself. Having opened their first restaurant in 1998, Armani now boasts 24 global locations which serve as both dining experiences and functional exhibitions, incorporating their furnishing pieces and aesthetics into a wider ‘Armani lifestyle’. A viral Burberry campaign saw celebrities simply brewing tea to their liking, discreetly spotlighting their clothes amid praise for returning to their British heritage. This success was reprised through a recent ‘London in Love’ interview collection, with Aimee Lou Wood’s feature exceeding 10 million TikTok views. Subtly shifting immersive focus to food allows brands to convey a relatable outlook while retaining airs of class and unattainability.

Given the Ozempic craze of the last few years, it is worth noting that there are very few instances in nutrition-oriented fashion of food actually being consumed. It is an accessory, complementing an ultra-thin body rather than daring to ruin it by calorie intake. Fresh and organic groceries are symbolic of affordable affluence, and thus class and weight intermingle in the cloud of consumer guilt surrounding this trend. 

Food as a signifier of wealth is by no means novel. The Victorian practice of renting pineapples for display purposes is one in a long line of status symbols, but at least each fruit saw multiple uses (the initial £11,000 price point in today’s currency may justify this). In January 2024, Kim Kardashian used out-of-season grapes as a dinner party table decoration, displaying her ability to afford ‘luxury’ fruit without associating the purchase with ingestion. In an even grander arrangement this year, Kris Jenner shared clips of the family’s Easter spread, embellishing the tablescape with hundreds of fresh vegetables as vases and candleholders.

At a time where environmental impact is the subject of intense scrutiny, these installations promoting the wastage of food beyond its aesthetic worth highlight the contradictions of a culture romanticising abundance as millions struggle to afford food for its face value purpose: a basic survival necessity. 

£8.4 million gift to establish new Oxford Professorship and Centre for Global Primary Care

Hassan Akram
-
0
£8.4 million gift to establish new Oxford Professorship and Centre for Global Primary Care

An £8.4 million gift will enable Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences to expand its work in global primary care with a new centre and a new professorship.

The gift is from the Fondation Docteur Sadok Besrou and will lead to the establishment of the new Dr Sadok Besrour Professorship of Global Primary Care, as well as a dedicated Besrour Centre for Global Primary Care at the University of Oxford.

The Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences (NDPCHS), which generates world-leading research into health systems and community-based care, will greatly benefit from the new Centre. Its focus will be on improving worldwide access to primary care which is both high-quality and evidence-based. Fellowships and scholarships for emerging healthcare leaders from low- and middle-income countries will also be beneficiaries of the funding. The new Centre will advance this work through global research partnerships, training programmes, and policy engagement to strengthen primary care systems around the world. 

Dr Sadok Besrour, a Canadian physician and philanthropist whose leadership helped to found the original Besrour Centre for Global Family Medicine in Canada in 2014, said: “Primary care is the foundation of health systems that truly serve people. I am honoured to support the Besrour Centre’s mission at Oxford. I believe in the power of collaboration, and I am confident that this Centre will contribute to achieving better health for all.”

A long-standing advocate for global primary care, Dr Sadok Besrour has supported the development of family medicine academic programmes, improved training for family and generalist physicians, and strengthened teaching capacity in low- and middle-income countries through education, research, and international collaboration.

Professor Sir Aziz Sheikh OBE, Head of the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Science, said: “We are very grateful to Dr Besrour for this important gift. This is an exciting moment for global primary care; the new Centre and Professorship will enable us to train future leaders, strengthen partnerships, and conduct research that addresses some of the biggest health challenges of our time.”

Professor Irene Tracey CBE, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, said: “This generous gift reflects our shared commitment to global health and equity. The Besrour Centre for Global Primary Care will be a key part of Oxford’s global health network. We thank Dr Besrour for his vision and support, and we look forward to seeing the Centre’s impact around the world.”

Professor Gavin Screaton, Head of Oxford’s Medical Sciences Division, opined: “This new Centre will enhance Oxford’s leadership in primary care research and education. It is a vital step in addressing global challenges in healthcare access and quality.”

‘My Oxford Year’ release date announced

Meg Howard
-
0
‘My Oxford Year’ release date announced

Netflix has confirmed the release date for the project it filmed in Oxford last year, My Oxford Year. Adapted from Julia Whelan’s book of the same name, the film will be released on 1st August.

My Oxford Year stars Sofia Carson as an American visiting student studying English Literature. Inevitably, Anna’s “Oxford Year” does not follow the familiar rhythm of tutorials, Bridge, and hall dinner – instead, it is interrupted by a passionate fling with her poetry tutor, Jamie Davenport, played by Corey Mylchreest. Mylchreest is no stranger to a Netflix success, having starred as George III in Queen Charlotte; A Bridgerton Story (2023). 

Filming took place in the city centre last September, at a similar time to the University’s open days. As a result, despite avoiding term-time, many students spotted camera crews near the Bridge of Sighs, the Radcliffe Camera, and Magdalen Bridge. 

Scenes were also shot at slightly less orthodox locations. Toby Gawthorne and Amber Masson, both students at Brasenose College, ended up meeting Mylchreest outside Hassan’s. “We sat down on a bench right next to the shot,” Gawthorne told Cherwell, “and that’s when, of all people, Corey came and sat down with his kebab next to us”. He asked them “whether the kebab van in the scene was one people actually went to”. Anyone who has walked down Broad Street after midnight can certainly answer that. According to Masson and Gawthorne, “he, and the rest of the crew… were absolutely lovely.” 

This will be the first major film set in Oxford since Saltburn in 2023. My Oxford Year paints a slightly different picture: as of writing, the official stills released by Netflix seem to promise an Oxford full of improbable meet-cutes, pithy yearning across oak-panelled rooms, and sub-fusc.

1...151617...2,515Page 16 of 2,515

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley