Saturday, April 26, 2025
Blog Page 195

Feta, tzatziki, and olive oil: the delights of Greek cuisine

Katerina Lygaki
-
0
Feta, tzatziki, and olive oil: the delights of Greek cuisine

Hello, I’m Katerina and I’m Greek. Now that we’ve established 90% of my personality, I’d like to take you on an imaginative journey through my favourite dishes from the motherland. Before going any further, I do have to give a little shoutout to my mum for being the best cook out there, and to Akis Petretzikis for creating really accessible recipes for Greek traditional dishes that have also been translated into English. If you are curious to make anything that I mention, do go on his site because his recipes are delicious and are quite authentic. Without further ado, here’s my definitive ranking of Greek cuisine.

  1. Χωριάτικη σαλάτα (Choriatiki salad)

This dish is better known as a ‘Greek Salad’, with tomatoes, green peppers, cucumber, raw red onion, olives, capers, feta, oregano and, of course, olive oil. A Greek family whips up this salad pretty much every single day. My favourite part has always been the ‘papara’ where you dip fresh bread in the olive oil at the bottom of the bowl, but beware, do not attempt to make this at home. The vegetables in the UK just do not hold their own compared to the produce in Greece, and any time I’ve attempted to make this in Oxford, I’ve been rudely surprised.

2. Γεμιστά (Gemista)

The literal translation for this dish is ‘stuffed’. Stuffed what, you may ask. This dish is a labour of love, hollowing out aubergines, zucchinis, green peppers, onions and tomatoes; stuffing them with a rice mixture; and slow-cooking them in the oven until the tomatoes and olive oil caramelise to perfection. The best part of this dish is definitely the left-over rice in the pan. It is best enjoyed with a big slice of bread and, of course, feta.

3. Γαριδομακαρονάδα (Garidomakaronada)

This is a shrimp pasta dish that involves a lot of garlic, tomatoes and shrimp. It is best enjoyed on a Greek island, overlooking the marina on a hot summer evening.

4. Παστίτσιο (Pastitsio)

When I described this dish to my mum as Greek lasagna, she hit me with her shoe. Now, I’ll let you be the judge. This dish starts with a layer of fat bucatini, then a layer of Bolognese sauce (the Greek way which includes a lot of cinnamon, bay leaves and clove), and topped with a layer of bechamel sauce. This dish is even better than ‘mousaka’, and its components of pasta Bolognese inspired one of the greatest Greek pop songs of all time: ‘Ela mou’ by Sakis Rouvas, in which Sakis entices his potential lover by singing ‘I will cook you pasta Bolognese to eat’.

5. Κολοκυθοκεφτέδες (Kolokithokeftedes)

These zucchini balls are made from a zucchini, feta and herb mixture that is fried in olive oil and is perfectly fluffy on the inside and crispy on the outside. They are the perfect addition to any Greek spread— the most common way to eat Greek food is meze style— and it couples perfectly with some fresh fish or a Greek salad.

6. Γαλακτομπούρεκο (Galaktomoureko)

I admit that this is a desert, so please don’t come for me, but it is so delicious I could not omit it. This is a milk custard that is wrapped in filo and baked. It is then doused in a lemony, cinnamon syrup and it is truly to die for.

7. Σουβλάκι (Souvlaki)

This is the ultimate street food. Ignore all the food trucks in Oxford because souvlaki is the perfect drunk food. Usually priced around 2 euros per wrap, the combination of pork (or chicken), fries, tomatoes, raw red onion and tzatziki has a very, very special place in my heart.

8. Μπριάμ (Mpriam)

This is another dish that highlights the importance of good ingredients (and olive oil) in Greek cuisine. It involves potatoes, aubergine, zucchini, onions, carrots, tomatoes and garlic tossed in oil and baked in the oven. The outcome is beautifully steamed vegetables that melt into each other.

9. Κοκορέστι (Kokoretsi)

Only eaten on Easter Sunday, this dish is basically a big skewer of organ meats that are wrapped in intestine lining and slow-roasted over an open fire. The meats become so tender and juicy that a simple side of Greek salad suffices in creating an excellent dish.

10. Λουκουμάδες (Loukoumades)

Saving the best for last, this is the best on-the-go dessert out there. It is the ‘crème de la crème’ of Greek cuisine: fried dough balls that have been dipped in honey and cinnamon. They are the perfect end to a summer day.

Image Credit: Katerina Lygaki.

Turtle Bay review – The Caribbean arrives in Oxford

Oliver Hall
-
0
Turtle Bay review – The Caribbean arrives in Oxford

Character is something hard to foster and maintain in a restaurant that is part of a chain, especially one that now numbers 48 in the UK — the fact that Turtle Bay manages to achieve that alongside great quality food is perhaps its biggest achievement. It brings a Caribbean ‘vibe’ to central Oxford and is genuinely unique in the city in its food, style, and atmosphere.

That Caribbean character doesn’t come through by accident either. Managers David and Csenge tell me that it is the result of careful design and planning that comes right from the top of the organisation. Founder Ajith insists that the open bar is the first thing customers see when they enter every restaurant, likewise with the open kitchen and its grills. These are placed in the service window, front and centre for everyone to see them used for all of the Roti dishes.

The menu itself is truly eclectic, drawing on all areas of the Caribbean with an eye to authenticity tailored to the UK market. During our visit we were able to sample a wide range of dishes from all parts of the menu; stretching from the famous bottomless brunch, to currys, jerk pits, buddha bowls, soul food, and burgers. The one thing that was the same across all areas was the power of the flavours. Almost without fail, everything we ate was punching full of a brilliant mix of spice, heat, and freshness.

Bottomless brunch is definitely what has made the restaurant most well-known and after trying the Honey Bunny Yardbird I can see why. The dish is a Caribbean take on American-style chicken and pancakes and consists of three soft and fluffy roti pancakes, topped with brilliantly succulent fried chicken, cream cheese, and maple syrup. Served with watermelon for another tropical spin, the combination of flavours works eerily well and I was left going back time and time again for more.

Yardbird

Among the starters, the crispy squid and the ‘Trini doubles’ stood out. The squid are thin and only very lightly battered — a welcome change from the pub-style ‘calamari’ that you often get in the UK. They are drizzled with coconut milk and chilli sauce — two sauces that combine brilliantly. The Trini doubles are intriguing — two roti with curried chickpeas, cucumber relish, and coconut. They have a deep backstory but are definitely plainer tasting than some other things on offer.

Squid and ‘Trini doubles’

When most people think of Caribbean cuisine, jerk chicken is what jumps out. Turtle Bay’s is seasoned with thyme, which is a nice touch, but the chicken breast itself was less juicy than in some of the other dishes. The slaw that came alongside was a good balance of creamy and fresh but not overdoing it whilst the side salad stared with beetroot, tomatoes, and a truly unique but delicious coconut-infused dressing.

Jerk Chicken

Fish fry features as a nod to Barbados and consists of more of that brilliant squid and a chunky piece of skin on salmon alongside fries. The squid were just as good as before and the skin of the salmon was irresistible but the meat itself was slightly overdone and lacking in flavour as a result. The spicy mac and cheese is a good accompaniment, bringing a welcome chilli kick to a dish that most don’t bother innovating on.

Fish fry and that chilli mac and cheese

Another signature here is the curried goat and boy does this one live up to the hype. Cooked for five hours in a delicious sauce, the meat falls apart as a result and is packed full of hearty flavour and warmth.

Curried goat

Elsewhere, the buddha bowls present a fresher and lighter alternative to soul food. Having said that, you certainly won’t be left feeling hungry with each one including brown rice. These dishes are real eye-catchers, made up of lettuce, watermelon, pineapple, cucumber, tomatoes, mushrooms, squash, beetroot, avocado, and more before getting finished off with your protein of choice. It’s almost impossible to get a complete bite but, if you make the effort, the combination of flavours is well worth it! Burgers are also on offer but if you are to make the trip I’d definitely advise sticking to the classics.

The eye-catching Tofu Buddha bowl

Drinks are of course where Turtle Bay has really made its name. Open all the way through from breakfast to midnight, the restaurant morphs into a late-night location after nine with a second happy hour and great ‘late-night-eats’ deals. The music amps up and the result is an atmosphere tailor-made for cocktails and rum sharers!

Speaking to staff, it is clear that they are more keen now than ever before to draw students in before going out to clubs and house parties. They are currently offering all students a free £10 to use after 9 PM and, together with the attraction of 4 cocktails and 2 small plates or sides for just £24.50, Turtle Bay makes a great spot to settle in for the evening or stop off at before a night out.

Scan for the student offer!

Overall, the remarkable thing about Turtle Bay is how it manages to cater to so many different customers and markets successfully. From breakfast, to brunch, to lunch, to dinner and beyond, the food is unique and flavourful throughout. If you are looking for a totally different experience from anything else on offer in the city right now, this is the place to go.

Images: Oliver Hall.

The 2024 Conundrum: Should Biden Run?

Lucas Haskins
-
0
The 2024 Conundrum: Should Biden Run?

The presidency is the ultimate job. Theoretically available to any American, it shimmers mirage-like on millions of intimate and individual horizons. In What It Takes, his 1,100 page paean to president-picking, Richard Ben Cramer writes that this singularity “was someone altogether larger, and more extraordinary than we.” 

This chief executive, we are told, holds the keys to that “shining city on the hill”, and cradles, Vestal-like, freedom’s very flame. 

Also, they get the nuclear codes. 

Joe Biden, like his predecessors, has a face and a voice known to billions. His every utterance is newsworthy, and if he falls off a bike? Well, that goes straight in the history books. 

In the last few decades, the presidency has lost a lot of its imperial sheen. Some of that is due to the end of the Cold War, and some of that simply reflects the unglamorous reality of 21st century life and media. Frankly, Rick and Morty’s President Curtis hit the nail on the head with “try having an historical administration after Facebook goes online, you old-timey bitch!” 

There are simply too many opportunities to look undignified. 

Yet, even given the recent phenomenon of presidential memeability, who holds the post does, to understate somewhat, matter. And with Donald Trump lingering like a fart in a poorly ventilated room, the question that every panicky liberal wants answered is “should Biden run again?”

Currently: yes.

Among other things, it would be weird if he did not. 

The last time a president failed to seek reelection / election in his own right was in 1968; the year in which the dream died. The country was buckling, “going up in flames each summer” as MLK put it, cracking and straining under the pressures of war, of cultural change, of progress and backlash. 

Lyndon B. Johnson had an albatross, Vietnam, hanging round his neck, dragging his approvals ever downwards, and he was facing a gruelling primary season. 

Eugene McCarthy, the progressive senator from Wisconsin, challenged him for the Democratic nomination and massively overperformed expectations in New Hampshire, losing, but losing by only 7 points; 49% to 42%. Scenting blood in the water, Robert F. Kennedy also entered the race. Staring down declining health and declining poll numbers, Johnson withdrew to live out his few remaining years in his native Texas. 

Before Johnson bowed out, the last president to eschew reelection was Harry Truman, who failed to seek his party’s nomination in 1952, believing, as Johnson did, that his electoral prospects were fast becoming untenable. It should be noted, however, that both men had already served for longer than four years. Johnson completed Jack Kennedy’s term after his assassination in Dallas, and Truman had served just shy of eight years, taking over from FDR following his death in the early months of his fourth term. 

It would therefore be highly anomalous, in modern presidential politics at least, were Biden to stand down before 2024.

Of course, the important normative question is not “would it be weird if Biden didn’t run?”, but rather “should he run?”, and this is intimately linked to whether he can win. 

Those who have already written off Biden for 2024 are wrong. He can run. He can win. 

Biden likes to say “don’t compare me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative” and that is what this article will do. Despite his drawbacks and the obvious risks inherent in seeking a second term, for five principal reasons, Joe Biden remains the best option for Democrats to hold the White House against Trump and Republican extremism, whilst also translating liberal aspirations into substantive policy. 

Firstly, let’s dispel a nasty rumour. 

Biden is not senile – he simply is not. He has fully shouldered the burden of the presidency; the meetings, the travel, the speeches, the gruelling hours, and he is fine. You need not even take my word for it – Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R – West Virginia) called him “sharp as a tack” in meetings. Senator Todd Young, also a Republican, this one from Indiana, stated that Biden was “well-prepared and well-briefed” when the two spoke. 

Believe me, it is obvious when a politician has held onto office longer than is advisable. Articles about 89 year-old Senator Dianne Feinstein’s cognitive decline have become Washington and California cottage industries, and she is not nearly the chamber’s worst. According to one Senate aide, Strom Thurmond, who reached his 100th birthday whilst still a Senator, spent his last decade unaware “if he was on foot or on horseback”.

Joe Biden is not Pericles. He was gaffe-prone in 2008, he was gaffe-prone when he first ran for President in 1988, and he will be gaffe-prone until the day he dies. His tendency to put his foot in it produces frequent wince-inducing moments. This does not mean he is unwell. 

Contemporary Presidents constantly find themselves answering questions before the cameras whilst exhausted and disoriented. All of them make errors. The Washington Post recently noted that these errors tend to be spun by opposition partisans to bolster wider, politically salient narratives: Bill Clinton = devious, Reagan and Bush Jr. = stupid, Biden = demented, etc. 

Amusingly, it appears widely forgotten that, like Roman augurs with chicken innards, liberals spent four years examining footage of Donald Trump and divining health woes everywhere. How quaint now seems the collective hysteria over Trump drinking a glass of water with two hands and awkwardly descending a ramp. 

The lesson is that partisans seek to convince themselves of the things they want to be true and that ceaseless documentation of modern presidents makes this especially easy.

Donald Trump remains frustratingly alive, and to paraphrase a misquoted Mark Twain: reports of Joe Biden’s dementia are greatly exaggerated. 

It is true that Joe is old, and I do not wish to dismiss the problems that may accompany this reality. When he was inaugurated in January 2021 at a robust 78, he immediately became the oldest man ever to hold the presidency. Ronald Reagan was 77 when he left office, and that was after 8 years in the job. Biden will soon be 80.

Of course the question of whether Biden can function in the role of President – not “is he as sharp across all dimensions as he was in, say, the 1990s”, but “can he do the job?” – is absolutely critical. But the answer is “yes”. Circumstances can always change, but there is currently no health related impetus for replacing the President atop the Democratic ticket. 

Secondly, Joe Biden’s prospects look brighter than they did in the summer. 

When I first drafted this article, I described his approval ratings as “horrible”, resembling in trajectory and magnitude “a man bleeding out.” 

Since that rather gloomy time, Biden has been on a hot streak. His approval ratings are ticking upwards with a dogged consistency previously reserved for the downward trend begun a year ago with the Afghanistan withdrawal and the BBB slugfest. From lows of c. -20 in June, as of late October, Biden is at -12; not good by any means, but no longer catastrophic. 

Moreover, and more importantly, approval ratings at this point (give or take a couple of months) really aren’t very instructive. At the end of 1982 / beginning of 1983, Reagan’s approval ratings were in the high 30s / low 40s. Even in April 1982, when his approval ratings were only c. -4 (43% approval to 47% disapproval), hypothetical match-ups showed him tied with Walter Mondale (Jimmy Carter’s Veep) and trailing Teddy Kennedy by 6 points. 

Of course, Democrats ultimately nominated Mondale and Reagan annihilated him, winning  every state in the union save for Mondale’s home of Minnesota – which he clung onto by fewer than 4,000 votes. 

By contrast, at this point in his presidency, George H.W. Bush was polling in the 70s and was yet to drop below 50%. In November 1992, Bill Clinton, a previously little-known Governor of Arkansas with a history of extramarital affairs, turfed Bush out of The White House – and it was not particularly close.

Of course, Reagan was at his nadir midway through his first term, and Bush was just shy of his high point. The former trended upwards as his reelection approached, and the latter trended downwards (although in both cases by less than one might perhaps imagine). Had Reagan faced the voters with approval ratings under 40% he likely would have lost, and had Bush stayed in the 70s, he certainly would have won. 

The point is not to say right now that Biden is guaranteed to win or guaranteed to lose were he to seek reelection. The point is that approval ratings are a dynamic indicator, and the status quo one day might seem unimaginable the next. Or, as Harold Macmillan put it, leaders are variously aided and challenged by “events, dear boy, events.”

As it happens, there are reasons to be hopeful when looking at Biden’s approval ratings. Among other things, there is a decent chance he gets more popular in the next year or two. 

The last two Democratic Presidents, Clinton and Obama, both saw their approval ratings melt during their first two years in office. In the subsequent midterms (1994 and 2010), both men took a beating, a “shellacking” as Obama famously called it. Both lost dozens of seats in the House, and eye-watering numbers of seats in the Senate. Under Clinton, Democrats lost both chambers, whereas in 2010, a narrow Democratic Senate majority was preserved.

The downside was that Republicans gained control of much of government, but the upside was that Republicans gained control of much of government. Having a trifecta is awesome, and it lets you pass legislation, but it inevitably invites thermostatic backlash. It also means that the party in power, regardless of a situation’s actual context, gets blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong. 

By contrast, divided government can give the president a foil, a reminder of why said president’s voters chose him (thus far) over “those guys”. This effect is particularly pronounced when the foil is composed of congressional Republicans, currently an extreme and extremely off-putting bunch. (Google Marjorie Taylor Greene if doubtful). 

Both Obama and Clinton saw their approval ratings start ticking up after Democrats lost power in Congress. In November 2010, Obama’s approval was at -4%, but come election day 2012, it was back up to +12%. Clinton’s polls fluctuated a little more, but immediately prior to the 1994 midterms he was often dropping below -10%. Yet, just as with Obama, by 1996 and Clinton’s own day of reckoning he was at +20%. 

Democrats, despite probably doing better than in 1994 or 2010, still look extremely likely to lose the House and possibly the Senate too. This will present massive dangers for the country, as I have explored here, but to be totally blunt, it might improve Biden’s reelection chances: it did for the last two Democrats. 

Thirdly, Biden has a surprisingly strong record upon which to run in 2024. 

On the 20th of July, The New Statesman ran this article titled “Why Joe Biden failed”. This seems harsh and rather overstated. For one thing, labelling a presidency a failure 1/3rd of the way through the first term is surely jumping the gun. And for another, on the merits of Biden’s presidency it is not a failure at all. Actually, thus far at least, a remarkable amount has been achieved. 

The tortured and tortuous history of the Biden legislative agenda deserves an article of its own, and so I will not go into it here, but suffice to say that the President’s domestic accomplishments include (among so much else) the extension until 2025 of enhanced Obamacare subsidies, around $200 billion dollars for scientific research, $52 billion to develop domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacities, $1,400 stimulus cheques to individuals as part of the COVID recovery, $550 billion in new spending of (re)building infrastructure, and the year-long Child Tax Credit. 

This is in addition to the closure of loopholes in the tax code which disproportionately benefited the wealthy, as well the largest ever American investment in decarbonization (c. $370 billion). 

Joe Biden has run the most pro-worker, pro-union administration in decades, and shifted the economic orthodoxy decisively in favour of industrial policy and other forms of government intervention. Moreover, Biden deserves significant credit for the resolve of the NATO alliance in the face of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Under his leadership, the US has put its money where its mouth is, appropriating over $50 billion for Ukraine, including billions worth of armaments.

Should Joe Biden seek reelection in 2024, he will be able to do so as the rare president better with actions than with words, and as the rare president with a veritable smorgasbord of impressive and enacted policies. 

Meanwhile, Donald Trump does not have a positive economic case to make for his reelection. Even looking solely at 2017, his administration failed in its attempt to repeal Obamacare (which would have been disastrous), and his tax cut cost $1.9 trillion whilst doing remarkably little for regular people. The economic theory was that slashing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% would spur investment leading to more employment, higher wages, and greater output. 

One of the many problems, however, was that corporations did not need the money. As we now understand looking back on the 2010s, liquidity was extremely easy to come by and borrowing was shockingly cheap. In other words, there were minimal constraints on corporate investment even without the rate reduction. One IMF analysis concluded unsurprisingly that leading S&P 500 companies funnelled 80% of their windfall into dividends, buybacks and the like, with 20% going to “capital expenditures” or R&D. 

Consequently, the contrasting political competence, and economic approaches, of the two men is easily perceptible. 

As Tony Blair often remarks, the best antidote to authoritarian populism is democracy delivering (in this case, Democrats delivering). And, contrary to many expectations, Democrats are doing a hell of a job. 

Fourthly, should Biden stand aside, the successor candidate may be weaker.

In keeping with comparing him to the alternative rather than the Almighty, any analysis of whether Biden should run must take seriously his likely replacement as Democratic standard bearer. There is a danger, should Joe Biden decline to seek reelection, that Democrats will find themselves trying to construct a ticket out of rather a thin bench. 

The party has talent(s). Figures like Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (assuming they win reelection in November) may well be viable national candidates in a few years. However, the elephant in the room when discussing immediate successors to Biden is Vice President Harris.

The fact of the matter is that, in recent years at least, a VP (former or incumbent) who seeks their party’s nomination invariably gets it. Democrats nominated Biden in 2020, Al Gore in 2000, Walter Mondale in 1984, and Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Republicans nominated George Bush Sr. in 1988, and Richard Nixon in both 1960 and 1968. Typically, the only way the Veep does not get the nomination is if they do not seek it. 

If one counts Veeps who ascend due to Presidential death or resignation, the trend gets even stronger: Democrats nominated Harry Truman in 1948 and LBJ in 1964, whilst Republicans tapped Gerald Ford in 1976. 

Admittedly, this apparent historical gospel rests heavily on selection bias. Essentially, Veeps win the nomination because those who might lose never bother running. Dick Cheney, for example, did not bother attempting to become the designated Republican loser to Barack Obama in 2008 (I cannot imagine his 13% approval ratings helped). Likewise, hapless Dan Quayle, Vice President to the elder Bush, never entered the 1996 race.

Therefore, were Biden to retire, there is no guarantee that Democrats would nominate Harris; she might not run. 

But this seems unlikely. 

And if she did run, Kamala Harris would most probably be the nominee. History is squarely in her corner, hypothetical primary polling is decent for her (there is no obvious challenger implying a likely coalescence around the VP), and one would have to assume that Biden would endorse her, as would most establishment Democrats. 

Furthermore, almost anyone who challenged Harris would have to contend with some poor optics. Imagine if you will, Pete Buttigeg, who polled in the low single digits with black voters in 2020, attempting to wrest the Democratic nomination away from the first African-American, female, Vice President. 

Nope. If Harris wanted it, the 2024 nomination would be hers. 

That is a slightly worrying prospect for Dems. 

The Vice President’s approval ratings are clearly tied to Biden’s, and so Harris does not bear absolute responsibility for them. Still, -12 is pretty shabby. To state the obvious, it is dangerous to run a candidate who most Americans do not particularly like (*cough* Hillary *cough*), especially if they are not even the incumbent President. Admittedly, Trump is more unpopular than Harris, but he was more unpopular than Clinton too. 

This unnerves me, but it does not unnerve me quite as much as the qualitative indicators. Harris was much touted as a “top-tier” 2020 contender but dropped out months before the first primaries, having run an unfocussed campaign bedevilled by staff turnover and internecine struggles. Since becoming vice president, her office has been much the same, marred by bickering, a revolving door, and a general impression of disarray. The Veep’s unfortunate habit of presiding over administrative messes does not inspire confidence either in a general election campaign or a potential presidential administration. 

Robert Singh, part of the politics faculty at Birkbeck, has called Harris “surely the weakest vice president since, and perhaps even including, Dan Quayle”. I know circa three things about Dan Quayle, and one of them is that whilst visiting an elementary school, Quayle ‘corrected’ a 12 year old’s spelling of the word “potato” to “potatoe”. This is not, then, a flattering comparison for the VP. 

From an electoral performance perspective, my preference is for Joe Biden over Kamala Harris. On the one hand, Biden has won a presidential election (defeating Trump), he has the powers associated with incumbency, and the administration’s achievements are first and foremost in his name. On the other hand, Kamala Harris has underperformed expectations (though to be entirely candid, this is as much a snowballed media consensus as it is a reality), and did rather a dismal job of running for president last time.

Fifthly and finally, *Donald Trump is not a good candidate*.

If he wants it, and I think he does, the 2024 Republican nomination is almost certainly Trump’s. I simply do not see him losing in the primaries – his lead over the entire field of potential rivals has been stable at around 25%, typically with a narrow majority of the vote, and this does not even account for the fact that some Republicans polled against Trump would refrain from taking the plunge if it actually meant facing the former President. 

Ted Cruz said in September that “the whole world will change depending on what Donald Trump decides. That’s true for every candidate. That’s true of every potential candidate.” 

This is a president who never achieved an approval rating of 50%, not once since his inauguration five-and-a-half years ago. This is a president who lost the popular vote twice, the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose the presidency, House, and Senate in one four year term. 

When Donald Trump ran for reelection, he lost! That is still comparatively rare in American politics! More to the point, when he ran for reelection, 81 million people voted for Joe Biden; before 2020, the most votes ever cast for a candidate had been 69.5 million (Obama 2008).

And all of this was before he attempted a coup. It was a farcical, humiliating authoritarian attempt, but an authoritarian attempt nonetheless. Not only that, Trump cannot for the life of him shut up about the “stolen” election. A presidential candidacy predominantly focussed on an entirely fictional grievance does not seem like a mysterious alchemical formula for electoral success. Trump may win in 2024, but let us not pretend he would not have grievous weaknesses – a potential indictment being high on the list.

As foalishly skittish as a Biden / Trump rematch would make me, I do believe that Biden would probably win. 

For the Democrats, it would be better to stick with the devil they know. Earlier, I mentioned two occasions when Democratic presidents had declined to seek reelection (Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968). Republicans went on to win both of those contests – (though of course it would be utterly disingenuous to pretend that the electoral headwinds which drove two presidents into retirement did not have something to do with this.)

The party should ride with Biden. If he does run in 2024, there must not be a primary challenge. The last two presidents to face anything more than token opposition (George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) both went on to lose. Admittedly, both of these presidents were vulnerable to begin with, but a failure of the party to coalesce around its incumbent does not just suggest blood in the water, it puts it there – hence why Obama’s team worked so diligently to tamp down on speculation about a challenger from the left. 

Joe Biden has his weaknesses. He lacks the kind of celestial radiance which emanated from Clinton and Obama. And yet despite that, Democrats will most probably do better in 2022 than they did in 1994 or 2010, and the party has achieved much to be proud of in its two years of power. Additionally, Biden’s much touted ‘decency’ contrasts well with the malice which characterises today’s Republican officeholders  – certainly it contrasted well with Donald Trump’s. 

Joe Biden, despite his age, remains a strong politician with a strong record. Unless circumstances become significantly more desperate, he is the best choice for 2024. 

Image credit: Gayatri Malhotra

How high can Victor Wembanyama reach: Seeing the LeBron successor live in Paris

Eoin Hanlon
-
0
How high can Victor Wembanyama reach: Seeing the LeBron successor live in Paris

I. Who is Wemby the Alien?

Birds fly, rabbits run; at 7-foot and 3 inches, Victor Wembanyama doesn’t need to do either. The eighteen-year-old French phenom has been labelled the best basketball prospect in two decades.Three weeks ago, Victor’s Metropolitans 92 faced off against the NBA G-League’s Ignite in two hotly-contested games in Las Vegas. The games pitted Wembanyama and Scoot Henderson, the forecasted first and second picks of the 2023 NBA draft, against each other in an earth-shattering showcase. On the court, Victor dazzled scouts and NBA media members with his shot repertoire and obvious defensive ability. Comparisons to fellow ‘Big’ and French national Rudy Gobert abound (watch out Team USA for France at home in 2024). Frankly, there are no good comparisons. Wembanyama’s game is visually remarkable; just given his sheer size and skill, he is unlike anything ever seen before in the NBA—he makes threes look like twos. When asked if there’s another player he wants to be like, Victor has it right: “I wanna be like no one else”.

II. The part where I go to see him because I’m on a year abroad.

Last Friday night’s game: Metropolitans 92 versus Ada Blois. This is their first game at home since the Las Vegas trip. Metropolitans play at the Marcel Cedan Palais des Sports, a small arena that doubles as a sports centre (complete with climbing wall) in the Parisian suburb of Levallois. The regular tickets sold out online in under two hours. I arrive an hour early and there are already a hundred people outside. The only tickets left available are courtside on the South “VIP” stand. I sit behind the hoop to the right. Beside me on the bench are the teams’ photographers. The arena is mostly empty as the teams warm up.

The South stand, it turns out, is where the away fans are seated. They enter behind me, all in green, carrying giant flags and licence plates that spell BLOIS. Across the court, I spy Lionel Jospin, basketball fan…and former French Prime Minister. Large swathes of the North stand are taken up by local primary school children shouting “Met-Ro” in defiance. They wave yellow and blue pom poms and unfurl a yellow banner across eleven people: METROPOLITANS. A dance version of Kate Bush’s ‘Running Up That Hill’ plays and the Metropolitans’ primary school fans are now doing the Icelandic slow hand-clap. Show time.

The players all run out, but only Wembanyama gets a cheer that rocks the Palais. As the two teams stand in a line, he does a two-footed jump on the spot and the arena collectively gasps. A minute out from the start of the game, Wemby’s warm-up intensifies. He almost head-buts the rim; he practises dunking. The game begins. Of course, he wins the tip and, in his first real touch of the ball, Wemby drives to the basket and scores.

Later, Victor lurches forward catching his defender off-guard; he gets a pass within the paint to go up for an easy dunk. The game is now 10-10.

With 2:22 left in the first quarter, what follows is a tripartite saga, a Godfather trilogy of blocked shots. And, like The Godfather, it is a story of revenge:

Part 1: One minute to go in the quarter, and Wemby blocks Brice Dessert easily amidst traffic. Dessert quickly regains the ball and is fouled by one of Victor’s teammates. Dessert is fouled once more, score: Metro – 24; Blois – 20.

Part 2: Down the other end, Dessert blocks Wemby. It’s the death of superman. Wemby hits the hardwood.

Part 3: Wemby yanks himself off the floor and chases after Dessert who is about to receive a pass within the restricted area. Brice gets the pass, goes up, but Wemby pins it to the backboard. Dessert’s shoe is on the ground, it appears as though Wemby blocked him so hard that it came off; in reality, Dessert had lost the shoe before going up to the rim, but it doesn’t stop Dessert from appealing to the referee on account of some shoe-related defensive foul. The quarter ends. Metro – 26; Blois – 22.

Sometime into the second quarter, Wemby is caught in a two-on-one fast break. He is able to force his opposition player to pass, looping it over him, and then demolishes Blois’ power forward, Amadou Sow. Perhaps shocked by the power of his own block, Wemby appears lost. He thinks that a foul has been called on him, he appeals to the referee, but no foul was in fact called. Meanwhile, his teammate, Hugo Besson, has scored at the other end. After a few minutes off, Wemby comes back on with 1:47 left in quarter. Goliath/Wemby finds himself defending David/Thomas Cornely, a 6-foot 3-inch Blois point guard. This matchup isn’t exactly even. They come to the left corner in front of the South stand (i.e. me). Wemby swats the shot away inches after its release. Hugo Besson scores a three to end the half.

The shot clock sounds. Wemby comes on in the fourth quarter with 6:52 to go. The rest of the game speaks entirely to his skillset. Within moments of stepping on the court, he gets a high pass from Jones on a counter-offence and puts it down for an alley-oop. He is fouled in the process but misses the free throw.

He is then one-on-one versus Đorđe Gagić on the left wing. He shoots, is fouled, and gets the three points. Gagić makes pantomime faces at the refs, a portrait of comic disbelief. Wemby again misses the free throw; still, 96 points to Metro. Victor launches a pass to Traoré in the paint, who springboards to score two points. To call Wembanyama’s passes cannon-like is to overestimate the speed and accuracy of a cannon. On display at least three times in the game, his 8-foot wingspan and excellent court vision make him a lock for great passing plays. Again, in the fourth quarter, a “blink and you’ll miss it” behind the back pass from Wemby to Idrissa Ba secures the team two more points. The score is now: 107-87.

There’s a small preamble before what is quite potentially Metropolitans’ last play of the game— Wemby signals to Traoré that he wants the next ball. He gets the ball, drives, spins towards the basket off his right foot, and finger rolls it in. The entire Blois roster couldn’t have stopped it. It’s a scary moment. You get the sense that he could have been doing this for the entire game. He simply asked for the ball and created two points. It’s like a close-up magic trick: two points from nothing. Final score: Metro – 113; Blois – 88.

Before they exit the court, Victor and the team do a lap of the stands: high-fiving fans, signing jerseys, taking photos – this is French professional basketball.

17 PTS, 7 REB, 6 AST, 5 BLK

*(though a second quarter block was called a foul).

III. Tanking or To The Victor Goes The Spurs.

As you may already be aware, the number one overall draft pick in the NBA is determined by a lottery. The three teams with the worst win records from the previous season each have a 14% chance of getting the first pick (from the fourth worst team onwards, the chances progressively decrease). A rookie like Wemby is of immense value to any NBA owner, more valuable than the 2022-23 season. There are therefore at least a few teams eyeing up a tank, notably the Utah Jazz, Houston Rockets, Oklahoma City Thunder and Gregg Popovich’s San Antonio Spurs.

Given the success of his US tour, there were calls for Wembanyama to cease playing in France before the draft so as not to risk injury. Dispelling the rumours Victor’s agent, Bouna Ndiaye, told ESPN, “NBA people are telling me to shut him down and we are not going to shut him down.”

Someone that tall needs to be experienced in person. When LeBron was drafted, I was almost two. The intervening years have been severely unremarkable. But the year-abroad Gods have brought me to Boulogne-Levallois in order to see him play out the remainder of the season for Metropolitans 92 in the LNB Pro A. Victor made Metropolitans look like a progressive modern basketball team on Friday. They have won four out of five games in the league (the last four games consecutively) and are undefeated at home. Metropolitans play their next home game on November 4th versus CSP Limoges.

Image Credit: Eoin Hanlon

‘Women You Know’: Review

Katerina Lygaki
-
0
‘Women You Know’: Review

‘A WOMAN and ANOTHER WOMAN discuss autonomy, identity, and bad sex. You know how it is with girls…’ This is the premise that is plastered on Women You Know’s Instagram bio, and it is a good description at that. This play by Catherine Barrie and Stella Jopling, co-directed by Tilly Fisher and Lucy Kennedy takes us through the chaotic, contemplative, random, and extremely funny conversations of two friends who explore their relationships as women to everything around them. This is an ode to female friendship and all those shitty men out there for providing the butt of every joke. Starting with a hungover conversation about the night before, the two women discuss everything from dating and sex, to the male gaze, to deeply traumatic experiences, to hereditary diseases and motherhood. It’s worth noting that the play does explore some very sensitive topics, with trigger warnings for drugs, alcohol, sexual references, references to suicide, and strong language.

Coco Cottam, playing A WOMAN, and Sorcha Finan, playing ANOTHER WOMAN, give stellar performances that grasp the deep emotional complexity of their characters without losing their humour. Their transitions between topics for the most part feel natural, seamlessly exploring the pipeline between bad sex to profound philosophical musings like, ‘Why is the sea so fucking deep?’ With minimal props and a non-descript setting, the play is mostly carried on the back of these two actresses and their interaction with one another, as well as the brief but very entertaining performances of men they’ve encountered.

This doesn’t mean that the play doesn’t have excellent costumes, staging and lighting. In fact, as you walk into the theatre, A WOMAN is already seated on what I have interpreted as a garden chair, dressed in an Elvis t-shirt, blue-patterned cotton trousers and a blue silk nightgown. This chaotic-chic aesthetic perfectly fits her character as we later find out, and it is offset by the cool girl aesthetic of ANOTHER WOMAN.

The lighting, thanks to Olivia Cho, is another greatly executed aspect of the play, with different colours and intensities bringing into the foreground some of my favourite parts of the play: a hilarious tinder sketch and different memories of dating horror stories. The non-descript location, organized by the stage manager Tamara Di Marco, adds to these performances as the women are allowed to step back in time through their memories without a set location limiting them.

Overall, this play and its promotional campaign perfectly capture the essence of being in your twenties, riding the wave of funny horror stories and emotional turmoil that we know all too well. The poster designed by Ellie Moriuchi is truly a thing of beauty, with its hardcore Y2K aesthetic, and the Instagram account @womenyouknow_ox, run by marketing director Marianne Doherty and assistant marketing manager Rosie Steele, brought me immense joy through their chaotically immaculate vibes.

I laughed, I tried but failed to cry, and had an overall nice time spending my Wednesday evening listening to these two women. Was it earth-shattering? No, but I don’t think that it was trying to be. Celebrating instead the everyday and the people that make it special, these women voiced some of my deepest anxieties and ultimately left me with one of the best songs of all time playing over and over in my head. If you get anything from this review is to run, not walk, to watch the music video for Carly Simon’s 1972 song You’re so Vain.

Image Credit: Promotional poster by Ellie Moriuchi.

This House would Legalise Drugs for Personal Use

A. Dowell
-
0
This House would Legalise Drugs for Personal Use

This week at the Oxford Union, the evening’s main debate concerned the future legality of a bag of coke. Unexpectedly, the most revelatory part of the evening was the attitude to women exhibited by a very funny member of the King’s counsel.

The motion for the members’ introductory debate concerned the newly unelected prime minister: ‘Are we ready for Rishi?’ As in, have we laid out the welcome brunch? Folded down the eiderdown in number 10? Briefed the cat? An even more unfortunately phrased Point of Information asked, ‘Are you personally dying for Rishi Sunak?’ A prescient question given Sunak’s teasers of ‘difficult decisions’ about the necessity of funding for free healthcare. Sunak was accused of worsening ‘issues that will affect us all for the next hundred years.’ With such healthcare cuts, one can probably only dream of reaching the post-Sunak centenary bash on the parched rock we will call Earth. We were assured that Sunak was never a President of this Union, only ever a member. One speech celebrated a man of Indian descent ruling Britain 75 years after Indian independence from the British Empire. This meaningful point was met with the response that Sunak was ‘returning the favour’ of the British Empire’s looting of India by ‘running this country into the ground.’

The main debate was whether ‘this house would legalise drugs for personal use’. The proposition featured a drug policy expert, first-hand experience of the carceral system, and psychological research. The opposition mustered three student speakers and Sir Ivan Lawrence KC. With the opposition so outmatched, the memberships’ support for the motion seemed almost predetermined.

Rosalie Chapman, the student speaker for the proposition, asserted that legalising drugs does not cause an increase in their use. Dr Fabian Steinmetz, a drug policy specialist, dismantled the discriminatory definitions of ‘drugs’ and argued that the effects of prohibition are the negative effects of drug use. He ended with a melodramatic stage whisper: ‘Watch out for straw men!’ Shaun Attwood, former-ecstasy-trafficker-come-YouTube-sensation (difficult to put on LinkedIn), physically re-enacted the gang violence he had witnessed in prison. Dr Phil Dalgarno, a researcher in mental health psychology, closed the proposition with the blunt suggestion that, ‘we could keep things as they are, that is…not working.’ He walked off with two peace signs in the air.

The opposition featured three students, namely Nadia Angela Bekhti, Abigail Bacon, and Ahmed Hussain, but surely the star of the show was Sir Ivan Lawrence KC MP. He is known for filibustering parliament: speaking inanely for four hours and twenty-three minutes to obstruct a bill about fluoride in water to improve public health. His speech was characteristically unfocused. Sir Ivan admitted he’d found the other arguments ‘too quick and deep’ for him to follow; this was just as well because his argument rested upon ignoring the facts they had included. He instead gave a factually-creative response to a strawman argument for legalisation he’d built himself. He summed up his view: ‘the fact of the matter is that people just believe what they want to believe.’ The secretary pleadingly dinged his bell. ‘Can I just have a moment longer?’ Sir Ivan appealed, ‘You make an exception for jokes, don’t you?’

So, into extra time, Sir Ivan began to tell one of the funniest jokes he’d ever heard, and it went as follows. ‘The Englishman said, “as I wave goodbye to my wife through the kitchen window, I see as she sits astride a horse her feet touch the ground. This is not because in England our horses are stunted for growth, it is because in England our women have beautiful long legs”.’ Under the press bench, I crossed my freakishly long shins. ‘Then, the Frenchman said, “when I say goodbye to my wife my hands encircle her waist. This is not because in France we Frenchmen have very big hands. It is because in France, our women have beautiful slim waists”.’ The triad joke formula panted to its weary close. ‘Then, the Russian said, “when I say goodbye to my wife in the morning, I slap her on the behind”.’ The men in the room guffawed. ‘”And if when I get back from work it is still wobbling, it is not because in Russia our women have very big behinds – it is because in Russia we have the shortest working day.”’ Sir Ivan Lawrence KC MP, illustrious barrister of 54 years, may not have persuaded the room against legalising drugs but he did give a comically candid demonstration of how he talks about women. English women may have ‘beautiful long legs’ but they do not have a criminal justice system that respects them – or in fact one where more than 2.9% of reported sexual offences result in a charge.

The union decided in favour of the legalisation of drugs for personal use with a vote of 112 for, and 58 against.

Image credit: Joe Emmens

Malala Yousafzai at the Oxford Union

Freya Jones
-
0
Malala Yousafzai at the Oxford Union

MALALA – despite an impressive termcard, none of the Oxford Union’s speakers this Michaelmas are as well-known as her. Mononyms are for the super-famous, and Malala’s name has become synonymous with the fight for women’s education around the world.

Speaking in a packed chamber on 1st November, Malala discussed her work as an education activist and her own experience as a student at Oxford University.

Born in Pakistan, Malala Yousafzai went to school in Swat Valley until the Pakistan Taliban set limits on girls’ education in 2009. After that, she began to advocate for women’s rights, while attending school in secret, before being shot in the head by the Taliban for her work in 2012.

Surviving the attack, she moved to the UK to receive medical care and continue her activism, having been catapulted onto the international stage. In 2014, Malala became the youngest ever recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. She studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University between 2017-2020.

Malala began the talk by reflecting on her time as a student at Oxford. She told the chamber she had many happy memories of her studies, but also acknowledged the pressures of Oxford life. “I remember nearly giving up, nearly deciding this is too hard”, she told the chamber, when asked about the challenges of balancing her studies with ongoing work as an activist. 

However, she also laughingly agreed that “[Oxford] is the best university in the world”, adding that the chance to study there was an amazing opportunity.

She then spoke about her ongoing work to ensure that all girls have access to education. From the barriers posed by climate change to hostile regimes, she described our current times as, “a global education emergency”. But calling for access to schools is not Malala’s only aim. “It’s just as important to ensure that schools actually are educating girls”, she said. “There are instances of the Taliban regime, for example, trying to change the curriculum… but when you take away essential skills like critical thinking and science, it becomes indoctrination and not education.”

Malala’s interview was in conversation with Oxford Union President Ahmad Nawaz, who himself survived an attack by the Taliban in 2014. Nawaz asked Malala about her experience of working with other activists and large institutions like the UN. “It’s really important to platform those affected by whatever issue is being discussed, not just talk about people as numbers and figures”, she said, before adding  “I’m not a young girl anymore. … I think it’s really important to bring new young people to the stage”.

Malala noted that politicians around the world are often ready to listen to her, but many other activists aren’t heard if she doesn’t endorse them. “Now, when I’m given a ten minute speech, I try to talk for two minutes and then give the rest of the time to a woman or girl who has experienced those issues,” she said.

Other questions from the Union concerned Malala’s views on a wide range of pressing global issues. When asked about her opinion on enforcing or banning hijabs for Muslim women, Malala said: “There should not be a state telling women what they should wear or what they shouldn’t wear… We never tell men what is a more acceptable dress code. It’s important that we realise it’s a matter of human liberty and human freedom that people make that decision for themselves.”

She was also questioned about her plans for the future, with one of the talk’s attendees asking if she still intends to work in Pakistani politics, a childhood ambition. Although Malala’s long-term plans are uncertain, however, an entry into politics now seems further off the cards. “My current focus is girl’s education” she said, citing the benefits of working as an activist outside the constraints of a political system. For now, Malala will continue advocating for girls in developing countries, especially areas affected by war and climate emergencies.

Towards the end of the talk, Malala also spoke about her friendship with fellow activist Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager who started the Fridays for Future movement against climate change. “I saw her two days ago,” she said, “ and I did strongly encourage her to apply to Oxford University!”

Members of the Oxford Union called Malala an inspiration, saying she had encouraged them to talk about global issues and given them confidence in their own voices.

She left the chamber to lasting applause, with President Nawaz saying he’d “never seen a more electric audience.”

Image credit: Southbank centre

National Union of Students disgrace: President dismissed following antisemitism investigation

Cecilia Catmur
-
0
National Union of Students disgrace: President dismissed following antisemitism investigation

CW: antisemitism and the Holocaust

The National Union of Students (NUS) announced the dismissal of its president, Shaima Dallali today following an investigation into antisemitic comments.  

The accusations against Dallali are multiple and span several years. Aged 18, she tweeted “Khaybar Khaybar O Jews… Muhammad’s army will return”, invoking a massacre of Jews in 628 AD.

Whilst Dallali apologized for this tweet, saying she is now “a different person,” she offered no apology for later comments likewise deemed antisemitic.

In an article published in November 2018, she labelled cleric Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “the moral compass for the Muslim community at large.” He is banned from Britain, America, France, and Germany for claiming that the Holocaust was a divine punishment against Jews and simultaneously exaggerated by Jews, and calling for another genocide.

In one discussion of the Holocaust, Al-Qaradawi commented: “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption … The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them… Allah Willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.” Dallali refused to comment when asked by The Tab in 2022 if she endorsed his views.

Shaima Dallali’s dismissal marks the conclusion of her suspension since 24th August, when investigations started. The initial independent investigation into the allegations against Dallali was conducted by Rebecca Tuck KC. Dallali, a former president of the Students’ Union at City, University of London, was the first president in the 100-year history of the NUS to be suspended.

The NUS said in a statement that the investigation panel found “significant breaches of NUS’ policies.” It has since apologised “for the harm that has been caused.” It commented: “We hope to rebuild the NUS in an inclusive way – fighting for all students as we have done for the past 100 years.”

Meanwhile, Dallali tweeted in September: “I knew it would be difficult being a Black, Muslim woman in the public eye but the racist and Islamophobic abuse I have been subjected to and death threats I have received since becoming NUS president are not OK.”

She claims she has been “subjected to the most horrifying attacks on [her] character, [her] faith and [her] identity.”

Rebecca Tuck KC is also currently conducting an independent investigation into “whether NUS has done enough to make Jewish students feel welcome, included and safe in NUS spaces, activities, and in elected roles.” She is investigating claims of antisemitism and poor treatment of Jewish students by NUS from 2005 onwards.

In 2005, three Jewish members of the NUS executive resigned over a perceived failure by the NUS to address antisemitism on university campuses. A UJS stand was vandalised by anti-Israel activists as an NUS conference in 2012. The same year, a convenor position on the NUS Anti-Racism Anti-Fascism (ARAF) campaign, previously reserved for a Jewish student, was removed. In 2016, Zionists were labelled “sub-human rats” by one NUS delegate. A report in 2017 revealed 65% of Jewish students disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt NUS would respond appropriately if allegations of antisemitism arose.

The government cut ties with the NUS in May in response to the longstanding accusations of antisemitism in the organisation.

In response to the president’s dismissal, the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) has released this statement:

“UJS respects the decision of the National Union of Students to dismiss their president. Antisemitism in the student movement goes beyond the actions of any one individual and this case is a symptom of a wider problem.

“Jewish students across the country will be asking how an individual deemed unfit for office by NUS was elected in the first place. We await the findings of the substantive inquiry into NUS’ treatment of Jewish students.”

Image credit: City SU

No guts, no glory : the Bones and All premiere

Natascha Norton
-
0
No guts, no glory : the Bones and All premiere

I found myself at this year’s London film festival, full of anticipation and moral questions as I awaited the UK premiere of Luca Guadagnino’s new film Bones and All, a cannibalistic love story starring Timothee Chalamet and Taylor Russell. Guadagnino prefaced the screening, with the statement that the film is intended to be “reflective of today” in the way that certain people are forced out of society, aiming to be an embodiment of “the way that young people can overcome that sense of oppression by being the way they are”. Despite this comforting sentiment, I was still quite hesitant about whether this delicate message would effectively come across through the 18+ lens of cannibalism. 

Bones and All follows the tale of two outsiders, Maren, tenderly interpreted by Taylor Russell, and the later introduced love interest Lee, played by Timothee Chalamet, as they run from their pasts toward an attempted self-awareness through the winding landscape of Reaganite America. Although cannibalism is what brings these two characters together, this is not a promotional depiction of a couple on a killing spree. Instead, we are taken along on an introspective journey which calls the very morals, rules and restrictions placed on ourselves as individuals and our society into question. 

Bones and All mixes the familiar and unfamiliar to create a hyper-realistic, yet off-kilter atmosphere; one which causes tangible tension in the theatre from the outset. A paradoxically excitable tension best compared to the feeling when one is strapped into a rollercoaster and slowly making the ascent toward an unforeseen drop; the adrenaline rush that keeps viewers coming back to horror films to feel the buzz. Guadagnino’s range of visual and audio techniques give the movie an attractive arthouse feel. The audience is taken on a journey spanning states, time and supporting characters that weave themselves into and out of the plot unexpectedly. These changes in location, mixed with close-up shots and snippets of characters’ memories, effectively attach the audience to the protagonists and their struggle for stability and community. Guadagnino’s true cinematic talent is embodied in the closing shot of Bones and All – a shot which has the same emotional profundity as the famous close-up shot of Timothee Chalamet crying in the flickering light of a blazing fire at the end of Call Me By Your Name (2017). Although the content of these two films is drastically different, Guadagnino’s ability to strike emotion into an audience was evident as the film credits roll. The vacuum of tension in the theatre was replaced by two minutes of applause, silent sobbing and an audible gasp from the woman sitting next to me. 

Special commendation must be given to the main actors, Chalamet and Russell – as well as the supporting actors: Mark Ryanlace, Chloë Sevigny and Michael Stahlbarg – for their gentle approach to such complex characters. All display their dynamism as artists by providing much-needed humanity, and the acting abilities necessary to carry these heavy dramatic roles across the finish line. Without this, the film could’ve easily turned into a flesh-eating fest full of audience walk outs and misplaced promotion of cannibalism. Commendation must also go to the beautifully haunting soundtrack, provided by award winning duo of Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor, which significantly added to the sensory layering of the thriller – of which the plot itself was both unexpected and successful in reimagining the romantic genre. Bones and All manages to mix the existentialist style of Jean-Luc Godard with all the terrifying psychological thriller aspects of Jordan Peele’s Get Out (2017), whilst still alluding to the classic generic conventions of star-crossed lovers like that of William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

I left the Royal Festival Hall slightly nauseated and love-sick but wholly impacted. The audience’s collective reaction thought the film was intense throughout; one of laughter, screaming, grimacing and crying. If a film’s success is measured in reactivity, emotivity and audience impact, Bones and All is a triumph. My only fear is that the brutality and vivid depiction of gore in the film that gave it its 18-rating may bar the younger generation Guadagnino intends to reach. Despite that, Bones and All establishes itself as a film full of natural beauty, tragedy and gruesome violence that somehow manages to capture a human vulnerability and desire for acceptance that is both universal and extremely relevant in our post-lockdown world.

If nothing else, Bones and All will make you feel something, whether it be good, or bad and undeniably spark conversation, introspection and philosophical debate. Is that not the real purpose of art? If so, bravo. 

New Bodleian exhibit sheds light on destructive legacy of the British Empire

Elliot Armstrong-Reed
-
0
New Bodleian exhibit sheds light on destructive legacy of the British Empire

The University of Oxford’s Bodleian Libraries has partnered with the Museum of Colour and Fusion Arts to create These Things Matter: Empire, Exploitation and Everyday-Racism, a one-of-a-kind collaborative exhibition that will examine the devastating long-term impacts of the British empire.

The exhibition will run from Thursday 17 November and be accessible to the public both in-person, at the Weston Library’s Blackwell Hall, and digitally, via the Museum of Colour’s online platform. Featuring selected artefacts from The Bodleian’s colonial collections, These Things Matter will aim to demonstrate how everyday communications helped to maintain the dominance of the British empire and Transatlantic Slave Trade. It is hoped that the inclusion of these artefacts, offered through a 21st century lens, will enlighten visitors as to their use in the systematic oppression of people of colour over several centuries.

The brainchild of Samenua Sesher, founder of the Museum of Colour, These Things Matter will feature the work of seven selected contemporary artists, one for each of the six artefacts on display, in addition to one piece reflecting the display in its entirety. Bunmi Ogunsiji, Grace Lee, Mina Atiq, Dirty Freud, Nilupa Yasmin, Mahmoud Mahdy and Johannah Latchem will each offer a personal response to their respective artefact through digital displays, art installations and sound. Collectively, the exhibition will take its visitors on a unique journey through the history of the slave trade by forcing them to consider the simple tools that ultimately enabled this systemic persecution.

Sesher credits her discovery of the so-called Slave Bible- a reworking of the Holy Bible that sought to deprive literate slaves from knowing of their right to freedom or dissuade them from thoughts of rebellion- as an initial source of inspiration. The Bible, which is currently held in the Bodleian’s collections, forms a central part of the exhibition. Of this discovery, Sesher has said: “Museum of Colour and the Bodleian were looking at how to build on our work together on Museum of Colour’s pilot exhibition, People of Letters. So, when I learnt about the ‘Slave Bible’, and that the Bodleian held a copy, I realised that we had the makings of a really compelling exhibition.”

She continued: ‘This exhibition will highlight the less discussed but conscious emotional manipulation in items like books and maps. Our co-curative process enabled us all to see the legacies in our societies today. The ongoing manipulation which makes some people think they are better than others and convinces other people that they are less.’

Antony Brewerton, Director of Academic Library Services at the Bodleian Libraries, said: “The Bodleian Libraries is honoured to partner with the Museum of Colour and Fusion Arts for such an important exhibition. Throughout history words and other mediums have been used to manipulate society and achieve certain outcomes, and the Transatlantic Slave Trade was no different. It is important that people know that and I am proud that the Bodleian is able to host such a necessary experience.”

These Things Matter also signals a new mode of collaboration within the culture and heritage sector whereby traditional, large-scale, organisations are increasingly looking toward working with micro partners, in the hopes of creating accessible visitor experiences. Kieran Cox, Artistic Director of Fusion Arts, has paid tribute to the featured artists, saying: “I specifically want to highlight and give gratitude to all the artists who have engaged with the artefacts and objects with such deep care, responsibility and generosity. The content of these documents evokes such strong, and raw, emotions that not only speaks to the atrocious emotional control, repression and violence of the past but also to the present-day everyday experience.”

Image credit:Bodleian Libraries

1...194195196...2,486Page 195 of 2,486

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