Thursday, May 15, 2025
Blog Page 160

“They used greasepaint on me as a foundation”: In conversation with British actress Llewella Gideon

Llewella Gideon is a British actress, comedian and writer best known for Absolutely Fabulous, a TV series from 1992 to 2012, and The Little Big Woman, a radio show from 2001 to 2003. She has made appearances in movies such as Paddington (2014) and Rye Lane (2023). 

Cherwell has obtained an interview with the British actress where she discusses her background as an actress and the changes she’s seen in the Black British media scene.

To begin with, Gideon takes us into what a typical day working as an actress looks like. She says “That would be a typical working day would depend on the production. And also whether it’s for television or theatre. If it’s for theatre, then it’s much easier because you’ll have rehearsals during the day, like ten to six, then you might have that six days a week. And then once the day is up and running, then you just go in half an hour before the play starts. So if the plays at seven o’clock, you’ll go in at sort of like half-past six, or 20 past six, and then you do the show, and you go home, so it’s much easier once the play is up and running. It’s just the rehearsal period…that can take a long, long time. But once the show’s up and running, it’s fine. And then if you have a matinee, then you’ll stay in the theatre all day. If your matinee’s at two o’clock we’ll be there from one o’clock right through to maybe 10 o’clock in the evening. If your production and your part in it, your day can start as early as six o’clock in the morning, or they might come and collect you at five o’clock, depending on where your location is, and you have to be on set for like eight o’clock. So those days are not so great because you have to get up like three o’clock in the morning or four o’clock. But it’s not too stressful, because you have a car, pick you up and take you there, but you’re barely awake. Though by the time you get into makeup at about six or seven o’clock, it’s all good. And you could work right through till, you know ten, eleven, twelve, at night, depending on what you’re shooting. So some days, it can be an incredibly long, long day and get very tired, but yeah, it’s all good.”

Despite the clearly hectic days the actress has, she tells me she still tries to make time for family, “I don’t really get much catch-up time until weekends, I tend to see if I’m doing if I’m filming, it is really hectic in terms of learning lines, going to bed, getting up to go on set, spending a whole day there. So I don’t tend to see family so much when I’m filming. So I really make an effort at the weekends definitely to see my mum and hang out with my sister. As we’re close in that regard. So but filming extras is just like being on the treadmill…But at weekends we tend to get everybody together and have Sunday dinner.”

With a hectic filming schedule like that Gideon is sure to have some projects she’s worked on that make it all worth it. According to Gideon, she has “quite a few” of her favourite projects as she jokes that she’s “been around for a while”. She tells me “I’m very proud of recently doing The Long Song by Andrea Levy at the Chichester theatre, very proud of playing Old July. And for film, I think would be ‘Small Axe’ by Steve McQueen. But it’s ever-changing, I’m doing more stuff and I’ve got more stuff coming up and might be really proud of but in terms of story and impact on the community, Small Axe and The Long Song, those were very powerful pieces I’m quite proud to have been involved in.” Many of us can relate to this sentiment. Wanting to do work that you feel makes a difference, or at the least, you can look back on and say that you’re proud to have done at least one thing impactful. I ask Gideon if this is a sentiment that she expresses in her work. She answers “Absolutely. I mean, there are not many jobs that I say I’ll just do it for the money. I always believe what Sidney Poitier used to say, that he does work that his grandchildren can watch for years to come. So I don’t want to do anything that I would be ashamed of years later…If I have grandchildren years later, so I try and do something that I actually believe in on some level, or that I feel is gonna get people thinking or is based in truth, whether or not I agree with that truth, but it is something that’s powerful because there is some truth in that story that will impact people.” She explains that “There’s always got to be some kind of connection unless they have specifically asked for me for a role. And then I look at the role and see if there’s something that I can do bring something to.”

Gideon has a son around the same age as me. I can’t imagine having a parent with the legacy of Gideon. A seasoned actress, whose been acting even when the media and film scene was not particularly kind to up-and-coming Black actors and actresses. She explains her legacy “But when I started…my first television job was at 21 and I’m 55 now, things were a lot different to what they are now, you know, racism, sexism, every -ism existed then, and was either unconscious bias, or just the way things were. So the landscape that I had to navigate at 21 in 1989, is so much different. And even in terms of makeup and what we wore…when I started, at the BBC, there wasn’t black makeup, that makeup wasn’t a thing. They had to literally go on courses, the makeup artists that worked on our show, to learn about makeup for black skin, and colours and shades that we could use. I remember one of my first acting jobs, they used grease paint on me as a foundation, and I remember a costume lady saying to me, ‘Oh no, you can’t wear black, black people don’t wear black’. They were always trying to put me in tiger stripes and leopard skin, which I hate. Up to now, if I ever see a costume designer come towards me with ‘Oh, we thought you might look good in this’ and it’s any sort of tiger print, or a leopard print shirt, I’m automatically like ‘No, I don’t. I just don’t’. And they’ll say, ‘Oh but it’s lovely and colourful’. And I’ll say, ‘No, not happening’. I’m not in the jungle. I may be black but not happening. So you know, we’ve had to change a lot of people’s attitudes to us as performers. And it’s so much better for young people today than it was then. And we didn’t have Facebook. And we didn’t have Instagram. So we didn’t have instant success. We had to earn it by how many people are watching us on television at that time. How much exposure you got through them advertised in that programme, etc. But usually, it was word of mouth. Because there were so few black people on the television if you did see one, you’d let everybody know ‘Oh, there’s this programme on and there’s black people in so you should watch it’. A completely different time. And we’ve come a long way since then.”

Though I’m not a seasoned actress, when I was about 12 I was in a Scouts and Guides gang show, a musical theatre production produced by the local Scouts and Girl Guiding groups. Rehearsals were about 4 months and I went every Sunday. I thought the people I was rehearsing with knew me well, at the very least, knew that I was Black. But when it got to the day of the performance, I was disheartened to discover not only had they not got makeup in my shade (like not even close), but they also hadn’t got the right shade of skin-coloured tights. I called my mum crying, and I never did the production again. It truly did alter my sense of self in the world of theatre, I didn’t think I would ever belong. Gideon confirms this “They do have an impact on you and on your psyche. So if you’re constantly in situations where you’re there to perform to your highest standard, and you believe that you’re equal, and people continually do these things, like not getting tights in the right shade, not putting your makeup on correctly, it can grind you down. You’re constantly, one, having to prove your creative talent. But you’re also trying to educate people who are used to doing things in a certain way. And sometimes there’s a bit of resistance to change, but I think we’re at a place where you have to be on top of your game. You know, people know how to like Black people. Now none of these excuses apply anymore. So to be on top of your game, you’ve got to be able to be inclusive in your work, in your makeup, in your costume design, in your hair design, in your lighting design, there’s no excuse not to allow us to shine as it were, literally and figuratively.”

The British media world is indeed changing, nowadays we have Black British actors and actresses like Daniel Kaluuya, John Boyega, Letitia Wright, and Damson Idris to name a few. The media world is starting to become more inclusive and our stories are being told on the big screen. Most notably Rye Lane (2023), which is dubbed the first Black British rom-com. Gideon is featured in the movie and she praises one of the two writers, Nathan Byron, “I’ve known Nathan very well for many, many, many years, ever since he started out in his writing career. He’s such a prolific writer, he’s such a fresh young voice. He talks about people of colour outside of those stereotypes that existed in the three-dimensional, which is so refreshing. So anytime he calls me to come and do a play I definitely do it because I believe in the stories that he’s telling. So I’ve known Nathan for a while. So when he asked if I would do a little part in Rye Lane, I knew it was going to be good. I knew it was going to have integrity. And I knew it was going to be telling a story from a voice that we haven’t heard before. And that was going to be funny because it’s incredibly funny. I had every faith in him so I had no hesitation. It was such a delight, the movie was such fun to make.

“It’s a movie that makes you come out of the cinema feeling good because it shows us, it shows people of colour, as real people who have aspirations, who have disappointments, who have quirkiness. And most of all, who have the same insecurities as anybody else and, who have love. And we don’t see enough Black love in the media or Black British love. It’s fun, it’s the rom-com as you’ve never seen it before. As a structure, it has everything that a rom-com is supposed to have. As a genre, it’s excellent, you can’t fault it, where people might be cynical because they’ve never seen Black people in a structured rom-com and it’s mainstream. But the difference is you’ve got young people in this structure. More importantly, as well, you’ve got young, dark skin in this structure. This is about two young people in love. And I hate to say that they just happened to be dark because it’s not a mistake. If you’re Black, we shouldn’t have to apologise ‘Oh, I’m sorry, I just happen to be Black.’ It’s three-dimensional characters. It’s us as we live, speak, and function within a particular community. This is one aspect of it of us. That’s why there are so many different voices in so many stories that are coming through and will come through from the voices of Black British people. And this is just one of them. So I love the movie. I absolutely love it.”

The actress has solidified herself in the Black British acting world. Her passion for her craft and her dedication to impactful projects shines through when she talks about her job as an actress. I can’t wait to see what else the actress has in store, and I wish her all the very best.

“I was told never to tell this story”: In conversation with journalist, Suzanne Kianpour

Suzanne Kianpour is a Foreign Affairs journalist whose work has taken her to over 50 countries. She has reported in war zones and followed presidential scandals, like the Russian involvement in the 2016 US election. Her work in uplifting women’s voices in conflict zones, like her series Women Building Peace, has brought a new tone to conflict reporting worldwide. Wong Yi Xuan and I, representing the Oxford Human Rights Student Society and Oxford Society for International Development, collaborated to ask Ms. Kianpour about her life as a war zone reporter.

Oswald: As a young person, you were interested in politics and international relations. How did you decide on journalism as the best way of expressing your political voice?

Kianpour: I was actually told never to tell this story by one of my bosses, which is exactly why I’m going to tell it. When I was in about fourth grade, I don’t know what that is in UK school standards, but I was about nine or ten, we had Current Affairs Friday. So we had an assignment every Friday where we had to go and take a newspaper and find an article and clip it off and hand write a summary of the article and then present it in front of the class. And I loved Fridays specifically because I got to look forward to this. I basically do this for you living at home. I grew up during an era of a lot of conflicts, and I just realised how important documenting history is and how important being an impartial witness is. That’s really what drove my decision to go into this part of journalism. Of course, I was just getting started in journalism when the Arab Spring happened. And then the rise of ISIS. My first real foreign posting was in Lebanon, and it was quiet when I arrived. And then suddenly next thing you know, there’s this Islamic extremist group that was wreaking havoc across the region and they’re chopping heads off an hour away from where I was living in Beirut.

Oswald: How has the world of journalism changed since the time when you came into it?

Kianpour: I mean, so much. Now there are so many outlets, and it seems like every day somebody’s starting a new news outlet and it’s great. And there’s a whole other ecosystem when it comes to social media and new social media outlets coming up, and I see the upside in that. Particularly in my work, it has never been easier for sources and contacts to get in touch with journalists. When I first started in journalism, the U.S. economy was in the worst recession since the Great Depression. So, my family thought it was crazy – I had just graduated from university and education was pretty expensive in the U.S. And so they’re thinking, oh, great she’s going to go and get this great high paying job. And then I called them and said, Guys, I have a job. I’m working at NBC News, which is like working for the BBC here. And they said, Oh, that’s wonderful. What are you doing? I said, I’m working in the mail room. I’m delivering mail. But I said, Listen, you have to do anything to get your foot in the door. I said, I promise it’ll work out. And sure enough, a year later, I was following Obama around and meeting Kobe Bryant. And so it did work out, let me hear. But at that time, I didn’t have as many options like I had. Now students interested in journalism have so many options. With the emergence of A.I., I think the media landscape is going to change even more. I personally think it’s a positive development. Others might not agree.

Oswald: How do you see the role of journalism changing with AI?

Kianpour: The reason why I think it’s a good thing is people will pay for good content. Because of this fear of A.I., there’s less room for mediocrity. Everyone has to be on their game, and thinking creatively. You need to be thinking about what you can deliver to your audience that a robot can’t. It’s really as simple as that. People will pay for good content and they don’t need to be afraid of A.I., it’s not going to take all of our jobs. It’s going to take the jobs that keep us from being able to do our jobs in the way that we really want to. I really see it as helping with the busy work, frankly. And I say that as somebody who hosted an episode of the BBC’s inquiry, which was all about killer robots and the rise of AI in warfare, and I am still optimistic. So I think that’s saying something.

Oswald: You’ve been to many countries and have had an extremely broad career. How do you change your approach to navigate those shifts between cultures in your journalism?

Kianpour: I think that being from a diverse cultural background has been an asset for me, particularly. My dad’s family is Iranian, and so when I have been speaking to foreign policy officials who are not exactly friends with the US, and they’ve found out that I’m Iranian, there’s an element of intrigue, but there’s maybe less mistrust. As a woman, you have better chances of getting the stories of the women who are in the war zones. Oftentimes they have the most profound stories, but they’re less likely to open up to men. So I’m grateful that I’ve come from a background where I can sort of manoeuvre between cultures. But even in the U.S., some parts of the country just feel like a completely different world to others. Being from the southern part of the country, when Donald Trump was elected and I was doing stories about MAGA country, I would approach people and they would first see me with a bit of suspicion because they would say they saw that BBC as a bit of an elitist organisation because Trump was really big on pumping up the whole fake news thing. But then when they would find out that I’m from Georgia, they would soften. And so I think as a journalist, it’s good to tap into the parts of what makes you who you are and your identity, not only to empathise with your subjects, the subjects of your stories, but also be able to make them feel safe and put them in a position to soften.

Oswald: You’ve done a lot of work in your journalism on uplifting women’s voices and finding their stories, which has been really quite inspiring and fascinating. I was wondering, as a female journalist, have you ever struggled with asserting or demanding your legitimacy in those kinds of political spaces?

Kianpour: Oh, yeah, definitely. I mean, I’ve found that sometimes it’s good if you’re underestimated because then they’re off their game and you can use that to your advantage. I’ve taken that to work for me rather than, you know, getting offended by it. And I think one’s work speaks for itself. And it’s also one of the reasons why I felt that it was important for particularly women and conflict stories to be amplified. So that was really one of the roots of Women Building Peace because I was going to these conflict zones and I was talking to these women and I didn’t see them. I didn’t see those stories amplified. There was this U.N. women’s statistic that came out pretty shortly before my series debuted on the BBC. And it was that to this day, still, only 25% of stories have women as the subject. This was in early 2022. Yet women don’t make up 25% of the world’s population. So, I mean, we still have work to do. So seeing women amplifying the stories of women not only in leadership but also connecting them with women. In the case of my program, in the conflict zones and literally facilitating the conversation between two people who would normally not have access to each other lifts them up. And we need more of that. And I hope to contribute to more of that. I hope that more women join me in contributing to more of that and stay tuned.

Wong: I actually wanted to ask about your views on the protests in Iran. You’ve done a lot of reporting on it—could you just give our listeners a bit of context? How are they going right now and what do you think is the future of these protests?

Kianpour: So I’ve just recently published an article in Politico magazine called ‘The Women of Iran Are Not Backing Down’, and that stands. I believe I also ended that article with ‘this genie is not going back in the bottle’, and it’s not. This revolution is a revolution, and it is the first women-led revolution. Iran is no stranger to protests; whether it’s Iran when it was to the monarchy, or Iran under the rule of the Islamic Republic. But this time it’s led by the women, it’s supported by men, and the regime is losing ground and they know they’re losing ground, and therefore they know they have to reform. There are factions within the regime who have admitted this and are advising the supreme leader. I’ve had sources tell me this who have knowledge of these conversations and have had the conversations themselves.

When you get to that point, this is why I very confidently say that this genie is not going back in the bottle. As it stands, the hijab, which is what sparked protests, has been rebelled against for a long time. In the opening of the article, I talked about my last trip to Iran which was in 2007 and even then, me and my cousin were also part of the rebellion because we were trying to wear as little hijab as possible. I saw how the women were quietly protesting using fashion, frankly. They were slowly pulling at the thread of the hijab which would eventually begin to unravel one of the pillars of the regime, and that is what’s happening now and they know that, and that’s why they’re in crisis mode.

I think we have to continue to see how it unfolds, but it’s not a matter of “change is coming”—change has already happened, change is in the past. Women are just going out in the streets not wearing hijab. They’re trying to find all these ways to enforce it and enforce the law, basically, and women don’t care. The ones who don’t want to wear it aren’t wearing it and the ones who do want to wear it are. Some say it’s over because they’re not pouring into the streets like they were in the fall, but that’s not true—a revolution isn’t “you’re in the streets marching every single day”. We’ll see how it unfolds.

Wong: I read the article, it was really good. I just wanted to pick up on something you said about the women themselves leading the protests—how does that specifically contribute to the longevity of the revolution?

Kianpour: I think it’s a battle of the wills, right? The authorities are banking on the women giving up, and they’re not going to give up. I’ve had conversations with people who have been non-political for most of their lives and now are suddenly political. This isn’t a political movement—and by political, I mean they’re saying “We don’t want the regime”. It’s less about politics; it’s about civil rights. The regime really miscalculated, quite frankly, in its crackdown. They thought they would get away with what they’ve gotten away with in the past, but nobody is forgetting the number of people who have died. The women, the kids, the men—nobody’s forgetting that, so that doesn’t just go away. That’s why women are continuing to lead the charge. What prompted the protests, what was the match that lit this up? I’ve been living in Dubai, part-time at least, and it felt like living in a tinderbox in the Fall. I thought, because I was also hosting this documentary on the Iran-Israel shadow war, I thought that it was a miscalculation in the covert war between Iran and Israel, but it wasn’t. It was a routine detention of a woman who wasn’t wearing her hijab properly. This is an important distinction—it’s not that she wasn’t wearing a hijab at all, she just wasn’t wearing it properly. They detained her, which happens all the time, and it went wrong. And that was it.

Wong: I also wanted to pick up on something in the “Women Building Peace” series—I listened to the episode on the Colombian peace agreement. What do you think women-centric conflict resolution looks like, and do you think it’s a trend we can expect to continue seeing in the future, or is it still very tentative?

Kianpour: Well, I hope that we see more of it in the future. I think that the reason why we decided to do an episode on Colombia even though Latin America is largely ignored by the media unless it’s something going off in Venezuela—I’m thinking specifically of American news—that was the perfect example of why women need to be at the table when it comes to peace negotiations. But also, we often speak a lot about women in peace; I did a story of women in the Iran nuclear deal, the women who actually brought home the Iran nuclear deal. But I also want to focus on the role of women in power when it comes to building peace. That’s what it really comes down to. There is power in being able to be at a table to bring about peace. I think up until now there’s been the idea that “peacebuilding is safe, let’s allow the women to do it”. Now we’re seeing that actually, this is quite effective. I think, to go back to the women of Iran, there was a huge coup. This cohort of women managed to get Iran kicked off the UN Committee for Protection of Women’s Rights, which is pretty ironic. That in and of itself is an example of why women should have a seat at this table.

Wong: I was actually going to ask you about that coup from the UN: what role do you think international organisations like the UN have to play in these protests? Do you think they’ve made a significant impact, or what more could they be doing?

Kianpour: I mean, people will debate this and they’ll say how much that means. But I think particularly when it comes to Iran, so much of the hold on power is psychological. Psychologically speaking, that was a defeat for the regime. Obviously, when it comes to a hands-on approach, there’s a lot of debate around that—particularly around violations of human rights, which is what they’re looking at right now in terms of what mechanisms they can use in order to hold the perpetrators of human rights violations in Iran specifically, but also elsewhere in Ukraine, accountable. But the UN is a bureaucracy; that’s why its efficacy as an organisation has historically been called into question—Donald Trump is one of them, right? But then we see the victories of the women who took this case to the UN and succeeded. At the end of the day, everybody is on the same page—whether they’re in the diaspora, or whether they’re inside the country or the UN, or the US government or the UK government, everyone is in agreement that the future of the country lies in the hands of the people living inside the country. They all live in the shadow of the 1953 coup which has really been weaponised, in a way, by the regime to reinforce the idea that the West is just coming into meddle. There are a lot of discrepancies with those stories, but that’s another conversation

Wong: On the topic of protests more broadly, you recently posted on your stories about social media as the new organising tool for protests. What do you think is the role of social media in protests now, and how do you think they’ll shape the evolution of protests in the future?

Kianpour: I think I also posted this on my social media that there are days where I’m so sick of social media, and I’m just like “Why do I have to keep this up?” But then I remember why—because it’s literally a lifeline for people like the Afghan woman who we called ‘Lama’ to protect her identity at the time. Now she’s out of the country, she’s continuing her studies in exile, and she’s holding UN officials’ feet to the fire. The reason why she made it onto my first episode about Afghanistan and women’s education in Afghanistan where she had a conversation with Hillary Clinton—Hillary Clinton actually just retweeted her the other day and she was really cute, she was freaking out about it as you would—was that she contacted me on Twitter. It’s a whole separate thing, but this is why social media’s important, verification is important, Elon Musk is throwing all of this up in the air and there’s a lot of debate about this right now. But all of that is important because this is a tool for getting your voice heard. For the women of Iran, the 2009 Green Revolution, which was a political movement about having the right to free and fair elections, was the Twitter revolution. That really put Twitter on the map—it was the Iranian revolution and political campaign that got Twitter on the map. And then the Arab Spring came after and solidified it. This time around, the women-led revolution in Iran is on Instagram. It’s all Instagram, and so much of the reporting I’ve done came from random people just sending me DMs and voice notes. At one point when the protests were happening every single day and it was really bloody, I was waking up to voice notes every single day. If it wasn’t for that, I wouldn’t know what was happening in Iran even though I was 70 kilometres away from it because I couldn’t get in; they weren’t letting Western journalists in. And so social media is a really important tool—I find it as a double-edged sword, and it’s here to stay. It’ll evolve, but it’s here to stay.

Wong: As more protests take place on social media, do you think there are any forms of activism on social media that are performative, or is that a distinction that isn’t worth drawing?

Kianpour: Yes, I think unfortunately in activism and journalism and all kinds of ‘ism’s, there is the performative. But I think at the end of the day when it comes to human rights it is the journalist’s job to sift through the performative. I think performativism is inevitable no matter where you go and no matter what you’re doing and who you’re talking to.

Wong: I also just wanted to ask—and this is kind of bringing in things from Women Building Peace and the articles you’ve written about the desire of the Iranian people to keep telling their stories—what’s the role that storytelling plays in advocacy?

Kianpour: There was a time when a friend told another friend that they had heard this amazing podcast called “Women Building Peace” and it was the Ethiopia episode. It was so moving that they had to turn in to pull over into a driveway and continue listening to it. When I hear stuff like that as feedback to the journalism that I’ve put out into the world, I realise how important storytelling is. It’s not just the story—it’s also how you tell it. For me, for “Women Building Peace”, it was of utmost priority to really focus on the stories of the people living the story on the ground in the conflict zone. Some of the episodes were post-conflict—as you know, Colombia and Bosnia. It’s about the story and the person and what they’ve experienced. There’s this quote that I can’t remember now, but I love this quote and think about it often and I think it’s a big part of why I do what I do: “Tell the story of the mountain you climbed because it could be a page in somebody else’s survival guide”. I think that that can resonate across so many different kinds of stories. Joan Didion said, “We tell ourselves stories in order to survive”. Storytelling is so important and I think it’s important to be protected and that’s why I keep doing what I’m doing.

Scrapping for Survival 

0

The scrap for survival in the Premier League is always a thrilling spectacle from the neutral’s perspective, but one with potentially devastating consequences for those involved. Last season, Burnley, Watford and Norwich City were relegated. While Burnley have already been promoted from the Championship to ensure an instant return to the top-flight, both Watford and Norwich are struggling to even make it into the play-off positions.  

This season, the battle looks to be more thrillingly tense than ever, with just 10 points separating Wolves in 13th   position (34 points) from Southampton at the foot of the league (24 points).  

The two teams at the bottom of the league, Nottingham Forest and Southampton, have both hit a poor run of form at the wrong time of the season. Southampton, however, did produce a wonderful 3-3 result away to league leaders Arsenal at the weekend, demonstrating significant attacking verve. Their game management can perhaps still be questioned, but such a performance must provide great encouragement. They have 6 games remaining to try and recover the 6-point deficit that separates them from the drop, but this includes daunting away days to Newcastle and more – I don’t see them picking up enough points to make up the ground. 

Nottingham Forest may stand more of a chance at surviving, as despite only picking up a single point in their last 6 league games, they showed great threat in the 3-2 loss away at Liverpool at the weekend and were perhaps unlucky to leave Anfield without a point, with Brennan Johnson striking the crossbar late in the game. Their fixtures are relatively tough on paper, with 3 of their remaining 6 games against teams in the top half, as well a tricky away game against a resurgent Crystal Palace under Roy Hodgson.  

The three teams I see battling it out to avoid the final relegation spot, therefore, are Everton, Leicester City, and Leeds United. All three teams have just 6 games left to play, with both Everton and Leicester on 28 and Leeds just a point ahead on 29. All the teams are in similarly unspectacular form of late, and even though Leeds have the most points of the three in their last six games (6), they have suffered devastating losses in the last 4 of the last 5 games, a concerning trend. Leeds crucially face Leicester in their next game which could prove decisive come the end of the season. Aside from that their run-in is highly varied, with games against Manchester City but also West Ham. 

Leicester’s run is perhaps slightly more favourable, facing Newcastle, too, as well as Liverpool, but also with home games against Everton and West Ham on the final day. The fact that Leicester is set to face both Everton and Leeds in the run in could be enough to determine the fate of the three teams. 

When Everton appointed Sean Dyche on the 4th February, many believed he was the perfect man to steer the club steadily away from the threat of relegation. This has not exactly been the case, however, with the club averaging 1.08 points a game since his appointment compared to 0.83 before. There has, therefore, been an improvement in results, but not a highly significant one.  Again, their remaining fixtures are relatively mixed; but will the Toffees be able to able to pick up enough points to ensure their status as one of just 6 clubs that has never been relegated from the Premier League?  

My verdict is yes, just. Both Everton and Leicester should just about scrape over the line at Leeds’ expense. Fortunately for Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Southampton fans is the sheer unpredictability of the Premier League. Each matchday is accompanied by various surprise results and no doubt they will continue to occur until the end of the season. 

Image Credit:Solent Creatives//CC BY 2.0 via Flikr

Freedom of speech in 2023: Why the Oxford Union will never cancel controversial speakers

0

Oxford University is the best university in the world. Coming here, I expected a culture of debate, academic challenges, and to be surrounded by students who would seek new ideas and adamantly defend their opinions once formed. For the most part, I am proud to come from a politically active university. However, after getting involved in the Oxford Union, I realise how some individuals avoid the opportunity to actively engage with and challenge those they disagree with.

This term, the Oxford Union has hit the student and national press by inviting Dr Kathleen Stock OBE to speak on her views about gender identity theory at the end of May. Stock gained notoriety in 2018 after opposing proposed changes to the 2004 UK Gender Recognition Act. These changes would allow people of any age to legally self-identify as a particular gender, without the requirement of a psychological or medical diagnosis. Last term, the Union made international headlines by hosting the Israeli Ambassador, Tzipi Hotovely, resulting in the President facing an invalid motion of no confidence and protestors chanting ‘Charlie, Charlie, you can’t hide, you’re supporting apartheid’. Along with hosting David Starkey in that same term, the Oxford Union is consistently at the heart of controversy. The student population in Oxford is fantastically outspoken, brave and intelligent, consistently voicing their opinions, protesting, writing for student papers and raising awareness online by condemning these speakers’ views, as well as the Union for hosting them. However, there seems to be an increasingly stark difference between the number of people who disapprove of such views and those willing to come to challenge them. 

Challenging these speakers in person, and in front of peers, can be difficult. I don’t support young people who may already come from minority or oppressed groups having to take on the burden of defending their own rights in the chamber. I do, however, believe that, as much as I find some speakers offensive, the Union should not rescind invites on the basis of Oxford students disagreeing with their views. The Union does not create controversy for its own sake. Speakers are chosen because their opinions may be important for today’s discussions or appropriate to one side of a debate. With the Union remaining separate from the University, the former having been formed 200 years ago, it is the only place where students can have access to these conversations. To start selecting what is ‘beyond discussion’ feels like a slippery slope to losing a rare platform, which endeavours to challenge all opinions opening up the left-leaning student sphere to views we might otherwise never have been able to hear.

So why does the Union not cancel speakers? 

At the centre of this debate is the idea of ‘platforming’. The Union was not made to platform, but to challenge speakers. As such, the Union neither platforms or de-platforms speakers. It would, for instance, be hard to argue that the Israeli Ambassador did not already have a significant platform before her invite to the Union. Admittedly, I did not know who Dr Kathleen Stock was until she appeared on the term card. Stock was, however, awarded an OBE. Surely the recognition of the state constitutes an existing platform? The comment heard so often when these speakers come is: ‘Nobody knows who they are, why is the Union raising awareness of these views?’ This is a fundamental problem, given that the student population is likely not to support preventing a ban on conversion therapy or prohibiting self-identification. Equally, there is a significant amount of people in the UK, and particularly in America, where Stock’s rhetoric is seen not as hateful but as reflecting the views of many. As the Union makes headlines around the world, it is responsible for providing a place for all views to be expressed, even if the student population does not agree with hosting certain people within their student sphere. 

Like many, I came to this University to gain exposure to other opinions and to be encouraged to learn and understand views I might disagree with. I have spent the past week in silence not because I wanted to be complicit in harming a community, but to take the time to educate myself so that I can challenge Stock in the chamber. Everyone will respond to hurt differently, but rescinding her invitation also prevents people who are willing to challenge her from speaking. When the YouTube video of Stock is published, most of the viewers will either be those who follow her or those who despise her. There is no better way to support the trans community than going into the spaces that oppose it and bringing the challenge to them. Defending one’s right to exist is awful, and should not be anybody’s burden, but for those willing to speak directly to those who oppose their views, in a controlled environment, is an opportunity I think they should seize. 

Rescinding an invitation or not inviting certain speakers also poses the question of how far free speech should go in this university and to whom it should not extend? Opening this up seems like opening a floodgate to an impossible challenge that could bring another harmful culture of comparing the offence experienced by different minority groups. For example, the Israeli Ambassador faced a large enough number of students who felt personally affected by her invitation that large protests could take place online or in person. But what would happen to smaller minority groups who feel equally attacked but cannot make as much noise to get invites rescinded? How would the Union decide which topics are off limits and which events will do more harm than good?

Finally, the core reason why so many speakers remain free to speak at the Union is that they are protected by Human Rights Law, namely freedom of expression. In Stock’s case, she has not currently committed hate speech, and her views as of 2021 are protected under the Equality Act of 2010, as gender-critical beliefs are protected. Thus, cancelling is not only a political battle but a legal one too. To ignore the rights of anyone simply because one opposes their views is, I believe, to stifle conversation and critical thinking.  

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. – Voltaire 

As the Union celebrates its bicentenary year, its need to uphold free speech is stronger than ever as the world begins to face new challenges it has not recognised before. With Stock’s appearance at the Union coming against the backdrop of Florida Republicans calling for a bill to remove trans kids from their parents, the need for views like  Stock’s to be challenged on the Union’s platform is not only important but necessary. The need to acknowledge the opinions of the community the Union sits in has become more important as students struggle to accept an institution that some so adamantly disagree with. The future of university cancel culture, free speech and the aim of building bridges between the Union’s global perspective and Oxford’s student-wide one remains unclear. Like many institutions, the Union has not always managed to challenge speakers properly. As such, it is valid to question whether or not it really does. However, with the Union standing and continuing to stand, I believe that its future relies on more members coming to challenge speakers rather than just protesting them online, where it is much easier to be ignored. As of last term, the Union now enables members to send in questions, meaning that those who may feel threatened by a speaker’s views do not need to enter the chamber but can know they will be heard. My only hope for the Union and for students of this university is that enough of have the strength to question speakers like Stock, David Starkey and the Israeli Ambassador in person, allowing us to challenge, not de-platform, them.

Image Credit: U.S. Department of State//Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

Review: A Poet and A Scholar.

I don’t normally write reviews, but this was so good I felt I had to. And the director definitely didn’t ask me.

The audience of Kian Moghaddas’ A Poet and a Scholar was in hysterics pretty much the entire way through. The play centres around Nico (Ethan Bareham), a restrained scholarly type given to reading books upside-down and presumably familiar to many Oxford students. But it’s his addiction to museums that leads his housemates Eli (exuberant, flamboyant and without filter, played to perfection by Aymen Aulaiwi) and Sam (drug addict given to snorting lines with the morning coffee and talking to herself, played by Kay Kassanda) to stage an intervention and lock him in the flat.

The set is decked out like a museum: when we walk into the Pilch there are paintings hanging on the walls with amusing descriptions, including one of Bareham himself (which, during the show, he steals as a present for Eli, claiming it looks ‘nothing like him’) and a printed photo of Bruce Forsyth, for a reason that remains unknown throughout the show, except to have his ‘sexiness’ commented on by one of Nico’s fellow museum-goers (Anna McKay).

The premise of the play is simple but paves the way for hilarity. A security guard (Fabian Bourdeaux) catches Nico stealing the painting (of himself) and attempts to steal it back from him. Nico escapes his enforced incarceration by means of a neighbour’s spare key, retrieved by the aid of his parents (Chess Nightingale and Warwick Wagner), who make a fantastic pair, the mother as the overbearing yoga-obsessed type and the ‘teetotal’ father who couldn’t really care less about anything going on around him.

A key feature of the play is a pattern of frequent blackouts during scene changes, as we move between the flat and the museum. During these changes, a pre-recorded podcast plays, introduced by its hosts as ‘Born This Gay: London’s leading gay podcast, except for all the others.’ These hosts are Eli himself and his friend Edison (Luna Arthur), who should be commended on his marvellous Welsh accent. Eli is open, Edison more reserved, and innuendos abound. It was an absolute treat to listen to, and a skilful way of avoiding losing the audience during the blackouts. In fact, the blackouts had a soundscape in themselves, ranging from snickering to full on hysterics. I spoke to a friend who admitted they ‘nearly passed out’ from laughter.In what is perhaps an inevitable conclusion, Nico and his housemates agree on a compromise in order to heal their simmering living situation: they go on the proper kind of museum trip: one on acid. This was where I thought things tipped slightly over into the absurd — all of a sudden Nico gets hit by a car (or, for Eli’s drugged mind, an orangutan with a number plate). However, the actors were clearly given free license to more or less do whatever they wanted during this scene, and their energy was infectious. At the play’s end, the Pilch still resounded with people’s laughter, and I was left with no doubts that Kian’s play will be a hit at the Brasenose arts week, where it is headed next, before the Edinburgh fringe under its new name: The Museum Trip.

Oxford announces Trinity Term 2023 will be its last

After 927 continuous years, The University of Oxford has announced that Trinity Term 2023 will be its last term ever. “We think it’s time,” said Vice Chancellor Irene Tracey. “It’s important to know when one has overstayed one’s welcome, and so we will be packing up this operation once and for all after the end of exams.” 

Classes have been convened in the area that is now University of Oxford since around the year 1096. Over hundreds of years the University grew into one of the most prestigious on Earth. “But nothing lasts forever,” said Tracey.

According to sources, the costs of keeping Oxford running had gone well over budget. While several donors offered to bail out Oxford, the University instead has decided to sell itself to a venture capital firm that intends to liquidate the University in order to pursue more profitable, efficient education enterprises. 

Oxford has confirmed, however, that several spin-off universities are in the works now. The plans for these sub-franchises will be unveiled over the next several months, but rumor has it that Magdalen College and the Blavatnik School of Government may become their own brands within the next ten years. It is yet to be seen whether any of these spin-offs will be as successful as the classic Oxford tribute University, the University Cambridge. 

Messages of sadness came from all corners of the world after Oxford made the announcement, with many world leaders current and former expressing their disappointment. “We’ll be sad to see it end, best night I ever had was at Oxford” said former PM David Cameron. “I am devastated but it is difficult to remain reliable and faithful for so long and never falter,” said Bill Clinton, a one-time Rhodes Scholar. “Thems the brakes,” said Boris Johnson. 

The Super Mario Bros. Movie – A review

Minor spoilers ahead: you’ll know more than if you just watched a trailer, but not enough to spoil the film massively.

Super Mario Galaxy 2 was my favourite game growing up. Not that I played much – I was the Player 2 star, Luma, meaning my abilities were limited to lazily grabbing the occasional bonus coin while Player 1 flailed about as Mario.

The cynics of the cinema might suggest Nintendo are out to grab a few bonus coins themselves with The Super Mario Bros. Movie, over 800 million at the current count. They might be right about the profit, but they’re wrong about the movie.

Usually you get a plot synopsis here, but what’s the point? Mario ends up in the Mushroom Kingdom, Bowser’s coming and he’s got Luigi. If you get lost at any point, Peach or Toad will drop in a bit of expositionary dialogue to boost you along. Let the fun begin.

The animation is bold and beautiful. Perhaps it doesn’t have the panache of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse or Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, but Nintendo has aimed high when it comes to colour, creativity and delivering a good “camera” angle instead of animating everything like a Mario game level.

Credit to the filmmakers for the casting. I was worried Chris Pratt as Mario was going to sound like me trying to order Fettuccine Alfredo at my local Italian, but him and Charlie Day make you forget all that nonsense you read online within the first few minutes. Charlie Day as Luigi is, if anything, underused, and the brotherly relationship is one of a couple of neat character angles Matthew Fogel serves up to you like a homemade lasagne.

You can see why the critics aren’t fans: the plot looks suspiciously like various bits of Mario IP stitched together with a few “yahoos!”; Seth Rogen’s Donkey Kong section in the middle doesn’t reward you half much as a halfway flag in a Mario level; the screenwriters have tried so hard to power-up Anya Taylor-Joy’s Princess Peach, she’s sadly ended up as a heroine so flat it’s as if she’s been ground-pounded, and only serves to remind us how Bowser is definitely very, very evil. Sure, the soundtrack is like having every Mario tune from the last 40 years stuffed in your ears, but what else were you buying the ticket for?

Jack Black is an obvious score as Bowser, once you get over the initial fact it sounds as if Po from Kung Fu Panda has gone through a very concerning moral and physical transformation. The marriage angle on the character uses Jack Black’s skills to the maximum and elevates his relationships with others to more than just evil Bowser.

I can’t decide about the pacing. On the one hand, the movie dashes along like Rainbow Mario and delivers an hour and a half of psychedelic but carefully-trimmed fun. There are points though, particularly with the Mario and Luigi relationship, Peach’s backstory, or Po’s Evil Twin – sorry, Bowser – just jamming out on his piano, where you want a little more. Oh well, it’ll be a franchise at this rate.

Does Mario one-up other video game-movie competitors such as Sonic? Absolutely. It’s sitting on a far richer world and has better characters, so even when there’s no good reason for a Bullet Bill to appear, I don’t mind that much. Mario doesn’t have to compromise with the real world and live-action characters like Sonic: it delivers a white-gloved punch of animated joy.

If you know your Goombas from your Koopas and your Kameks from your karts, this movie will make you feel like you’re sitting back at whichever Nintendo console you first met that little, moustached man. If you’re a film aficionado who thinks a Mini Mushroom is what they’re searching you at airports for, then maybe not. Looking for deep and meaningful cinema? Wait for Barbie in July instead. But for the person looking for a way to switch off, grab your Luigi and cry “Mamma Mia!”: Super Mario, as it always has been, is the way to let’s-a-go.

TT23 Week 1 Solutions

Sudoku:

By Lewis Callister

Word Slide:

By Lewis Callister

Cryptic Crossword:

By Sarah Beard

TT23 Week 0 Solutions

Sudoku Answers:

Wordsearch:

Cryptic Crossword:

Normalising transgression: A review of Joyland.

Ostensibly centred around the affair of the married Haider with the transgender Biba, Joyland brims with moments of queerness. Director Saim Sadiq presents us with what seems to be a typical Pakistani family, which reveals itself to be the site of transgressive acts of desire and gender expression.

The husband-wife dyad of Haider (Ali Junejo) and Mumtaz (Rasti Farooq) is played out in unconventional terms. The opening scene follows Haider, shrouded in a bedsheet, as he runs through the familial house playing with his young nieces. We then discover his casual and sporadic employment, that it is Mumtaz who plays the breadwinner while Haider supports his sister-in-law, Nucchi, in the running of the multigenerational household. The marriage is unconventional: sexless, yet platonic. It is only when Haider finds employment, restoring the normative marital structure, that things fall apart. Mumtaz is forced by the patriarch, Rana, (Salman Peerzada) to leave her job, and it is at Haider’s place of work, an erotic dance theatre, that his affair with Biba (Alina Khan) blossoms.

Yet, even in this restoration of surface-level patriarchal order, queerness persists. The domestic quasi-confinement of Mumtaz and Nucchi (Sarwat Gilani) becomes a space for female homosocial relationships akin to that in Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1996). A scene in which the pair visit a carnival together becomes a focal point of female intimacy, with Sadiq and Maggie Briggs’ masterful script interposing the women’s closeness with Nucchi’s cries for mercy as they are propelled forward and backward on a pirate ship ride.

Joyland has had a fraught journey to the silver screen. Despite a strong debut at Cannes last year, where the film was met with a standing ovation and awarded a Queer Palm, Joyland was marred by controversy in Pakistan. Perhaps unsurprisingly in a country with a troubled record on LGBTQ+ rights, the film was banned at first by censors in the state of Punjab. However, after appeals from figures across the country, including Malala Yousafzai, a recut version of the film was finally released in Pakistan.

Despite this turn of events, the film is profoundly Pakistani. The only definitively queer character is Biba, a ‘khawaja sira’, a term translated variously as ‘transgender’, ‘intersex’, or ‘third gender’. By centring a character from a community whose identity resists English definition, Sadiq presents an imaginative reality entirely divorced from Western constructions of gender, resisting the common claim that queer identities are outside impositions. Biba’s work as a ‘mujra’ dancer, a lasting vestige of Mughal courtly culture, loads the character with subcontinental ideals of femininity.

A sort of tragi-comedy, Joyland intersperses wry commentary on Desi family values and discrimination with moments of pure joy, and not-so-pure humour. Along the string of powerful, yet pearlescent scenes, come moments of unrestrained sadness: the rebuking of an old woman in search of new love, the emasculation of Haider as he fails to complete ‘qurbani’ (ritual sacrifice) on Bakr Eid, and the jealous yearning of Nucchi to, at last, bear a son.

The final shot sees the camera panning outwards from Haider’s still body as he wades in the waters of Karachi. Haider has escaped the inland chaos of Lahore and finds himself fulfilling a dream deferred: to see the sea. By the time the credits roll, he is almost invisible, for Joyland far outflanks him, and Mumtaz, and Biba for that matter.

Omnipresent and consistent is only the veil of patriarchy which obscures the genuine expression of each character – like the shrouded figure of Haider in the opening scene, like the loose-cut salwaar behind which Mumtaz hides, like the cardboard cut-out of Biba (in the film’s poster) which is precariously draped.

In Joyland, queerness becomes banal, and patriarchy is revealed to be futile. It is a must-watch.